Hurst v Hurst and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 December 1849 |
| Date | 10 December 1849 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 154 E.R. 1341
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 19 L J Ex 410 Corrected, Leigh v Lallie, 1860, 6 H & N 170, n Referred to, Wall v Rederiaktiebolaget Luggude, [1915] 3 K B 68
Himst v hurst and another Dec 10, 1849-A lessee covenanted that he "would pay all taxes, chatges, rates, tithes, 01 rent charge in lieu of tithe, dues, and duties whatsoever, as then were 01 should at any time thereafter during that demise be taxed, charged, assessed, or imposed upon the sard demised premises " - Held, that the covenant was not conhrred to lates payable by the landlord, but irieant all rates then imposed on the lessee in respect of his occupation, and all future rates whrch might be imposed on the land itself-A declaratron stated, that the defendants covenanted that they "would not lopor top any tree without the consent in wilting of the plaintiff, under a penalty of 201 for each ttee which should be so lopped ot topped, ovei arid above the actual value of the tree" Be each, that the defendants "lopped divers, to wit, twenty trees, without the consent in writing of the plaintiff, which tiees so lopped weie of gieat value, to wit, of the value of 801 , and thereupon and theteby the defendants then became liable to pay, and ought to have paid, to the plaintiff, cur tarn large sums of money, to wrt, the sum or KOI , betng the value of the said trees , and also the further sum of 201 for each of the trees so lopped by the defendants, being the amount of penalties then incurred and forfeited by the defendants to the plaintiff.' foi lopping the said trees "-Held, that, assuming the 201 penalty to be liquidated 1342 HURST V. HUftST 4 EX 572 damage, the plaintiff could not recovet it on this breach, inasmuch as it did not allege that the penalty was not paid [S C 19 L, J Ex 410 Collected, Lnyhv LMie, I860, 6 H & N 170, n Eefened to, Wall v Rfdenakhelolaget Luygmle, [1915] 3 K B 68 | Covenant The declaration (so far as is material) stated that, by an indenture of the 18th of September, 1847, made between the plaintiff of the one part, and the defendants of the other part (piofert), the plaintiff demised to the defendants certain buildings, farms, closes, pieces 01 parcels of arable, meadow, pasture, and wood land, Situate &c | except all timber, and timbei-like trees, &c, then 01 theteaftei upon the premises, to hold the said buildings, land, &c , (except as aforesaid) unto the defendants from the 29th of September then next ensuing, foi the term of seven years, paying theiefore the yeaily rent of 801, &c , and the defendants did, in and by the said irrdenture, covenant and agree with the plaintiff in manner following, (that is to say,) that the defendants should and would pay 01 cause to bo paid unto the plaintiff the taicl yearly rent, fec , and also should and would pay and peiforrn all taxes, charges, fates, tithes, or rent-charges in lieu of tithes, dues, and duties whatsoever, as then were or should at any time theieaftei during that demise be taxed, charged, assessed, [572] 01 imposed upon the said demised piemises 01 any part thereof (except the land-tax and pioperty-tax), and that the defendants would not cut down, bark, lop, Or top any tree, without the consent 111 writing of the plamtift, under a penalty of 201 for each tree which should be so felled, cut down, barked, lopped 01 topped, ovei arrd above the actual value of such tiee Breaches-That the defendants, after the execution of the indenture, and duimg the continuance of the demise, and before the commencement of thrs suit, to wit, on &c, lopped dr\ers, to wit, twenty trees, then growing and being in and upon the said demised premises, without the consent in writing of the plaintiff, which trees, so lopped by the defendants, were of great value, to wit, of the value of 801 , and thereupon and thereby the defendants therr became Ijable to p.iy, and ought to have paid, to the plaintiff, certain laige sums of money, to wit, the sum of f^Ol, being the value of the said trees, and also the furthei sum of 201 for each of the trees so lopped by the defendants as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Malton, Appellant; West, Respondent
...Palmer v. PowerUNK 4 Ir. C. L. R. 191. Payne v. BurridgeENR 12 M. & W. 727. Tidswell v. WhitworthELR L. R. 2 C. P. 326. Hurst v. HurstENR 4 Ex. 571. Scovell v. GardinerUNK 16 Ir. C. L. R. 318. Theed v. StarkeyENR 8 Mod. 235, 314. Rowls v. GellsENR 1 Cowp. 451. Palmer v. PowerUNK 4 I. C. L. ......
-
Consolidated Company Bultfontein Mine Ltd v De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd
...Act of 1917, L.C.C. v Attorney-General (1901, A.C. 26). "In respect of our business" covers profits and income tax see Hurst v Hurst (4 Ex. 571), Tatam v Reeve (1893, 1 Q.B. 44), Lovat v Duchess of Leeds (1862, E.R. 545, 2 Drew & Sm. 62), Festing v Taylor (3 Best & S. 217), Bannerman v Youn......
-
In Greene v Thornton
...Parish v. SleemanENR 1 De G. F. & J. 326 Bennett v. WomachENR 7 B. & C. 627. Scovell v. GardinerUNK 16 Ir. C. L. R. 316. Hurst v. HurstENR 4 Ex. 571. Allum v. DickinsonELR 9 Q. B. Div. 632 Thompson v . LapworthELR L. R. 3 C. P. 149. Hartley v. Hudson 4 C. P. Div. 367. Budd v. Marshall 5 C. ......
-
Murray and Others v Minister for Finance
...[1920] 2 I. R. 412. (2) 16 L. R. Ir. 381. (3) 32 L. R. Ir. 216. (1) 4 I. C. L. R. 191. (2) [1894] 2 I. R. 49. (3) 16 I. C. L. R. 318. (4) 4 Ex. 571. (5) 16 L. R. Ir. (1) 4 I. C. L. R. 191. (2) 16 L. R. Ir. 381. ...