Lumley and Raisbeck against Hodgson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 June 1812 |
| Date | 06 June 1812 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 104 E.R. 1026
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
lumley and kaisbeck against hodgson. Saturday, June 6th, 1812. An action for use and, occupation is maintainable without attornment upon the stat. 4 & 5 Ann. c. 16, s. 9 & 10, by the trustees of one whose title the tenant (defendant) had notice of before he paid over his rent to his original landlord; though the tenant had no notice of the legal title being in the plaintiffs on the record. This was an action for the use and occupation of certain copyhold messuages, warehouses, and an acre of land in Bishopswearmoutb, in the county of Durham; and it was brought to recover a year and a half's rent from the defendant, as tenant, which had accrued after the surrender of the premises, (as after mentioned,) by one Michael Hutton to the plaintiffs, calculated up to the 13th of May 1810, when the defendant quitted the premises; and which rent the defendant had actually paid to Mr. Hutton, 16 EAST, 100. LUMLEY V. HODGSON 1027 his former landlord, of whom he had taken the .premises. The circumstances of the case appear in the following bill and answer in a suit in Chancery, which were admitted and read in evidence. The bill, which was for a discovery, was filed by these plaintiffs against the defendant; to which he put in his answer, stating that on the 13th of May 1807, [100] he became tenant from year to year to Michael Hutton of the premises in question, which were copyhold, at a rent of 1001. a-year, (including the fixtures, valued at 401. a-year,) payable half-yearly. That money transactions to a considerable amount had passed between Robert Wilkinson, Gr. Snowden, and the plaintiff Lumley, who were bankers at Stockton, and M. Hutton, who acted as their agent; and that if any surrender was made of the premises by Hutton to Lumley and Eaisbeck, in trust for Wilkinson, his heirs, &c. as stated by the bill, such surrender was, as the deponent believed, intended only as a security for any balance due from Hutton to the banking-house. That the deponent admitted that he was tenant from year to year of the premises at the date of the surrender; but denied that Hutton gave him any notice of it at the time. That Lumley and Wilkinson called upon the deponent in 1808, (whether on the 14th of March or afterwards he could not say,) when Wilkinson informed him that the premises which he (the deponent) then occupied belonged to him, (Wilkinson,) and inquired...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thursby and Others v Plant
...been held sufficient to entitle his trustees to maintain an action as grantees of the reversion against the terrant, without attornment. 16 East, 99, Lumley v. Hodgson. [But the grantee cannot, it should seem, recover for the use and occupation of the premises for any bygone time before the......
-
Finlay v The Bristol and Exeter Railway Company
...in fact between them and the occupieis titanden v Chnt-lmat* (10 Q B 135), Mayor of Newport v Sounders* (3 B & Ad 414), Lumley v Hodgson (16 East, 99) Secondly Assuming that an artion foi use and occupation may be maintained against a corporation on an executed parol conti act, the defendan......
-
Mortimer v Preedy
...in this case. How can an implied contract be transferred-a contract implied from the occupation?] It was held in Lumley v. Hodgson (16 East, 99) that since the stat. 4 Anne, c. 1(5, s. 9, the action for use and occupation may be brought by the assignee of the reversion, without attornment o......
-
Bristowe v Fairclough
...PFhelpdale, Bull. N. P. 96; Doe d. Foster v. PFilliams, Cowper, 621, 622; Atkynsv. Lord WillougKby, "2 Anstruther, 397; Lwnley v. Hodgson, 16 East, 99; Hushby v. Dixon, 3 Barn. & Cressw. 298, 302; Doe d. Gruob v. Grubb, 10 Barn. & Cressw. 816; Doe d. Clun v. Clark, Peake, Add. Cases, 239 ; ......