Lainson, Executor of Owen Griffiths, against Tremere
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 June 1834 |
| Date | 10 June 1834 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 1410
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 3 N. & M. 603.
1410 lainson: v. tremere i ad. a e. 792. [792] lainson, Executor of Owen Griffiths, against tremere. Tuesday, June 10th, 'J834. In an action upon a bond, appearing upon oyer to be conditioned for the payment of the rent of certain premises, recited in the condition to be demised by indenture at a certain specific rent, as by the said indenture, &c. the defendant cannot plead that the indenture mentioned in the condition was an indenture by which a certain rent, less in amount than the rent mentioned in the condition, was reserved, and that such less rent has been paid. [S. C. 3 N. & M. 603.] Debt on bond for 10001., made to the testator by the defendant. The defendant set out, on oyer, the bond and condition. The bond was joint and several, by the defendant and two other persons, and dated the 29th of October 1809. The condition recited, that by indenture of lease bearing even date therewith, made between Owen Griffiths (the testator) of the one part, and James Tremere (the defendant) of the other part, Griffiths, for the considerations therein mentioned, demised certain messuages and premises, habendum to Tremere, his executors, administrators, and assigns, for a term of thirty-one years, at the yearly rent of 1701., payable quarterly, and subject to certain covenants, &c. therein contained, on the tenants' parts to be performed, as by the said lease, &c.: and the condition of the bond was stated to be the payment to Griffiths, his executors, &c., of the said yearly rent or sum of 1701. and also the performance of all the covenants, &c. in the same indenture of lease contained on the part of the lessee, tenant, or assignee to be performed, &c. First plea, non est faetum; upon wnieh issue was joined. Second plea. That the indenture of lease in the condition mentioned, was a certain indenture of lease bearing even date with the said writing obligatory in the said declaration mentioned, that is to say, &c. (the indenture was then set forth, down to the reddendum [793] rather more fully than in the condition); yielding and paying therefor yearly and every year during the said term unto the said Owen Griffiths, his executors, &c. the yearly sum of 1401. of lawful, &c. And the said defendant did thereby for himself, his heirs, executors, &c. covenant, promise, and agree to and with the said Owen Griffiths, his executors, &c. (stating a covenant by the defendant to pay the said rent of 1401. at the appointed days.) And the defendant further alleged, that there were not, nor are, any other covenants, clauses, provisoes, conditions, or agreements in the same indenture of lease contained, which from and after the execution of the said writing obligatory during the continuance of the said term by the said lease granted, on the part of the lessee therein mentioned, tenant, or assignee, were or ought to be paid, observed, performed, fulfilled, or kept: as in and by the said indenture, &c. The plea then alleged that the defendant entered by virtue of the demise, and was possessed, and that he, from time to time and at all times, well and truly paid to Owen Griffiths in his life time, and to the plaintiff as his executor since his death, the said yearly rent or sum of 1401. at the days and times, fee., and in the manner and form by the said indenture limited and appointed, &c. according to the true intent and meaning of the said indenture, &c. Replication. That the said defendant has not since the making of the said writing the names of Henry Foster, and of the late and present earl. At, the trial before Alderson B., at the Lancaster Spring Assizes, 1835, the above-mentioned examination of the deceased witness, William Foster, was offered in evidence for the plaintiff, on the counts laying the demises in the name of Henry Foster. This was objected to on behalf of the defendant, inasmuch as the trial on which that examination was taken related to the property, late Mrs. Travers's, at Croft, whereas the present action was for the land, formerly hers, at Hoyton, a different property. The learned Judge, without hearing counsel in answer to the objection, said that he had no doubt of the examination being admissible, the question being the same in both .actions, viz. who was the heir at law of Mrs. Travers. (See 1 Stark, on Ev. 223, 2d ed., citing Lewis v. Clarges, ante, 788, as Sherwin v. Glarges.) On this decision, a compromise was offered by the defendant, and acceded to. Cresswell, Alexander, Wightman, and Cowling for the plaintiff. Atcherley Serjt. (A. G. of the County Palatine), Tomlinson, and Addison for the defendant. 1AD.&E.794. LAINSON V. TREMERE 1411 obligatory, and during the continuance of the term in the said condition thereof mentioned, well and truly paid or caused to be paid-to the said plaintiff, executor as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Re Parent Trust & Finance Company Ltd
-
OMG Holdings Pte Ltd v Pos Ad Sdn Bhd
...(refd) Kickapoo (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v The Monarch Beverage Co (Europe) Ltd [2010] 1 SLR 1212 (refd) Lainson v Tremere (1834) 1 Ad & E 792; 110 ER 1410 (refd) Lifestyle 1.99 Pte Ltd v S$1.99 Pte Ltd [2000] 1 SLR (R) 687; [2000] 2 SLR 766 (refd) National Aerated Water Co Pte Ltd v Monarch Co, ......
-
Kreglinger and Fernau Ltd v Irish National Insurance Company Ltd
...(4) 8 Ch. D. 469. (5) [1904] 2 Ch. 178. (6) [1912] 2 K. B. 72. (7) [1937] A. C. 1. (8) [1927] 1 K. B. 65. (9) [1936] 1 K. B. 408. (10) 1 Ad. & E. 792. (11) 1 Cowp. (12) 2 Ch. D. 72. (1) [1899] 1 Q. B. 782. (1) [1894] 1 Q. B. 54. (2) [1897] 1 Q. B. 517. (3) [1937] A. C. 1. (1) 2 F. & F. 663.......
-
Greer v Kettle
...by Sir H. Finch p. 33). This doctrine was not distinctly overruled till the year 1834 when, in the cases of Lainson v. Tremere [1834] 1 A. & E. 792 and Bowman v. Taylor [1834] 2 A. & E. 278, it was held to be unsound. Both cases were argued on demurrer, and there was therefore no statement ......