Line v Stephenson and Another, Executors of Gutterson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 December 1838 |
| Date | 10 December 1838 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 132 E.R. 1075
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 7 Scott, 69; 1 Arn. 294; 7 L. J. C. P. 263. Adopted, Mostyn v. West Mostyn Coal and Iron Company, 11876, 1 C. P. D. 152. See Grosvenor Hotel Company v. Hamilton, [1894] 2 Q. B. 840. Discussed, Baynes v. Lloyd, [1895] 2 Q B. 616; Budd-Scott v. Daniell, [1902]2 K. B. 356.
5bing.(n.c.)184. line v. stephenson 1075 in the exchequer chamber line v. stephenson and another, Executors of Gutferson. Dec.Ti), 1838. [S. C. 7 Scott, 69 ; I Arn. 294; 7 L. J. C. P. 263. Adopted, Mostyn v. West Mostyn Coal and Iron Company, 1876, 1 C. P. D. 152. See Cfrosvmor Hotel Company v. Hamilton, [1894] 2 Q, B. 840. Discussed, Baynes v. Lloyd, [1895] 1 Q. B. 825; [1895] 2 Q. B. 616; Budd-Scott v. Daniell, [1902] 2 K. B. 356.] The word demise, in a lease; implies a covenant for title and a covenant for quiet enjoyment; but both branches of such implied covenant are restrained by an express covenant for quiet enjoyment. Error from the Court of Common Pleas. The declaration stated that the testator demised two messuages to the Plaintiff, to hold from the 25th of December 1836, for forty-nine years, wanting ten days, and covenanted that the Plaintiff should enjoy them during the term, without interruption from the testator, or any person claiming under him. Breach,-that the testator had not at the time of the lease or since, nor had the Defendants, power to demise the premises for forty-nine years wanting ten days; by means of which the Plaintiff lost money in pulling down, rebuilding, and improving the premises. Upon demurrer to this breach, judgment having been given for the Defendants in the Court below, (see ante, vol. iv. p. 678), Ogle now for the Plaintiff contended, as before, that in the word demise, two distinct covenants are implied, [184] one for title, and the other for quiet enjoyment: that the two are not synonymous; per Lord Ellenborough C. J., in Hcwell v. Richards (11 East, 642), and Hale C. J., in Norman v. Foster (1 Mod. 101); per Littledale J. in Burnett v. Lynch (5 B. & C. 609); Fras&r v. Skey (2 Chitty's Rep. 646), Bac. Abr. Covt. B. Com. Dig. Covt. A. 4 : and that though an express extinguishes an implied covenant, yet that the express covenant here, only extinguished the particular implied covenant to which it related, namely, the covenant for quiet enjoyment, leaving the implied...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Western Australia v Ward; Attorney-General (Nt) v Ward;Ningarmara v Northern Territory;Ward v Crosswalk Pty Ltd
...to the principal situate at ______ …’ 532 4th ed (reissue), vol 27(1), par [106]. 533 vol 16, par [245–10]. 534Line v Stephenson (1838) 5 Bing (NC) 183 [ 132 ER 1075]; Hall v City of London Brewery Company Ltd (1862) 2 B&S 737 [ 121 ER 1245]; Geary v Clifton Co [1928] 3 DLR 64 at 67 per Wri......
-
Pomfret v Ricroft
...; since expressum facit cessare taciturn. 4 Taunt. 329, Merrill v. Frame. [4 Bing. N. C. 678, Line v. Stephenson. 6 Scott, 447, S. C. 5 Bing. N. C. 183. 7 Scott, 69, S. C. in error. See also post, Vol. II. p. 178, et seq. notes to fPotton v. Hele.] lWMB.gAUHB.SM. MICH. 21 CAB. II. REGIS 457......
-
Gainsford v Griffith
...Vol. II. 178, et seq. as to the construction of covenants of indemnity. (t) [4 Bing. N. C. 678, Line v. Stephenson. 6 Scott, 447, S. C. 5 Bing. N. C. 183. 72 BUTLER V. WIGGE 1 WM8. SACND. 61. covenant in fact, which is not, nor can be, restrained by any other subsequent covenant, if it cann......
-
Monypenny v Monypenny
...for Job's Cross. They referred to Eight dem. Jefferys v. Bucknell (2 B. & Ad. 278); Line v. Stevenson (4 Bing. N. C. 678; 5 Bing. N. C. 183); Mathew v. Blackmwe (1 H. & N. 762); Adams v. Gibney (6 Bing. 656). Mr. Willcock and Mr. Wickens for two Defendants interested in the personal estate.......