Lewis v Bond
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 December 1853 |
| Date | 10 December 1853 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 34
ROLLS COURT.
[85] lewis v. bond. Dec. 10, 1853. A. agreed to grant a lease to B., who knew that A. held under a leasehold title. Held, that B. must be deemed to have known that A. could only grant a lease with such restrictions as those under which he held. Specific performance of an under-lease refused, the intended lessee having, with notice, committed acts which would have been a forfeiture of the original lease. In 1846 the Defendant Bond obtained a building lease for ninety-nine years under the Marquis of Bute, which contained a covenant against carrying on a beer-shop or any offensive trade upon the premises, and a proviso for re-entry on breach of the covenants. The Defendant subsequently agreed to grant a lease of the premises to the Plaintiff with the usual covenants. The Plaintiff entered into possession before any under-lease had been granted, and he opened a beer-shop; and, persisting in this course of conduct, the Defendant ejected him. The Plaintiff filed this claim for the specific performance of the agreement for a lease. Mr. Denny, for the Plaintiff, argued that the forfeiture had been waived by the Marquis of Bute; and, as the Plaintiff was willing to take such lease as the Defendant could grant, the Defendant could not raise the objection. Mr. Pearson, for the Defendant, argued that an under-lease, without the restrictive covenants, could not be granted, and that the Plaintiff had notice of the terms of the original lease ; secondly, that the acts which would forfeit the lease, if granted, would also forfeit the right to a specific performance. [86] The following cases were cited -.-Flight v. Barton (3 Myl. & K. 282); Doe d. Ambler v. Wooilhridge, (9 B. & Or. 376); Gvtgwy v. Wilson (9 Hare, 683); Oosser v. Collinge (3 Myl. & K. 283); Neap v. Abbott (Cooper, 333); Marquis Towns/lend v. Stangroam (6 Ves. 328); Mason v. Armitage (13 Ves. 25); Macher v. The Foundling Hospital (1 Ves. & B. 188) ; and Platt on Leases. the master of the eolls [Sir John Eomilly]. What I have to consider is, whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a specific performance of the lease for fourteen years on the terms to be determined in Chambers. I am of opinion that the circumstances of the case preclude the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cullen v O'Meara and Another
...v. HamiltonENR 8 Kay, 550. Flight v. BartonENR 3 My. & K. 282; Dart. V. & P. 58, 74. Barraud v. ArcherENR 2 Sim. 433. Lewis v. BondENR 18 Beav. 85. Smith v. CapronENR 7 Hare, 185. Vignoles v. BowenIR 12 Ir. Eq. 194. Wilbraham v. LiveseyENR 18 Beav. 206. Le Neve v. Le Neve 2 Wh. & Tud. 44, &......
-
Rankin v Lay
...v. Pitt (19 Ves. 134); Hill v. Barclay (16 Ves. 402); G-reen v. Bridges (4 Sim. 96); Gregory v. Wilson, (9 Hare, 683); Lewis v. Band (18 Beav. 85); Bracebndge v. Buckley (2 Price, 200); Flint v. Brandon (8 Ves. 159); Rayne.r v. Stone (2 Eden, 128). The rent was paid and accepted without pre......
-
Cullen v O'Meara and Another
...1 Bing. N. C. 370. Coverly v. BurrellENR 5 B. & Ald. 257. Hall v. Smith 14 Ves. 426. Pope v. Garland 4 Y. & C. 394. Lewis v. BondENR 18 Beav. 85. Spunner v. Walsh 10 Ir. Eq. R. 390. Vignoles v. Bowen 12 Ir. Eq. R. 194. Flight v. Barton 3 M. & K. 282. Pope v. Garland 4 Y. & C. 394, at p. 401......