Lyon v Reed
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 July 1844 |
| Date | 06 July 1844 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 153 E.R. 118
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 13 L. J. Ex. 377; 8 Jur. 762. Approved, Creagh v. Blood, 1845, 8 Ir. Eq. R. 688; 3 Jo. & Lat. 138; Nickells v. Alterstone, 1847, 10 Q. B. 944. Applied, Grimwood v. Moss, 1872, L. R. 7 C. P. 364; Philips v. Miller, 1875, L. R. 10 C. P. 424; Oastler v. Henderson, 1877, 2 Q. B. D. 580. Discussed, Wallis v. Hands, [1893] 2 Ch. 75. Not applied, Fenner v. Blake, [1900] 1 Q. B. 426.
LyoN i). reed and others, Executors of Shakespeare Reed, Deceased. July 6, .-A surrender by deed is unnecessary, where the former lessee is the party wno ta]jgs fcne new lease, as the fact of his so doing is evidence that the new lease has been accepted by him, and such acceptance operates as a surrender in It M. & W. 286. LYON V. HEED 119 law ; but it is not enough that the lessee agrees to an act done by the reversioner ; and sernble, that a demise of premises by the reversioner to a stranger, with the consent of the lessee in possession, will not amount to a surrender by operation of law.-The term "surrender by operation of law" is properly applied to cases where the owner of a'particular estate has been a party to some act, the validity of which he is by law afterwards estopped from disputing, and which would not he valid if his particular estate continued to exist. Thus, when lessee for years accepts a new lease from his lessor, he is estopped from saying that his lessor had not the power to make the new lease; and as the lessor could not grant the new lease until the prior one had been surrendered, the acceptance of such new lease is of itself a surrender of the former one. Much surrender is the act of the law, and takes place independently of, and even in spite of, the intention of the parties.-The acts in pais, winch bind parties by way of estoppel, are acts of notoriety, not less formal and solemn than the execution of a deed ; as, for instance, livery, entry, acceptance of an estate, arid the like. [S. C. 13 L. J. Ex. 377; 8 Jur. 762. Approver], Creagh v. lilood, 1845, 8 Ir. Eq. R. 688; 3 Jo. & Lat. 138; NickeUit v. Alterstane, 1847,'10 Q. B. 944. Applied, Ch-im-wootl v. Muss, 1872, L. R. 7 C. P. 364 ; Phtiifs v. Miller, 1875, L. R. 10 C. P. 424 ; Oastler v. Henderson, 1877, 2 Q. B. D. 580. Discussed, Wallta v. Hanih, [1893] 2 Ch. 75. Not applied, Fenner v. Blake, [1900] 1 Q. B. 426.] Debt. The declaration stated, that, under and by virtue of a certain indenture of lease, bearing date the 26th December, 1803, made between George, Bishop of Lincoln, Dean of St. Paul's, of the one part, and John Ord and Joseph Planta of the other part, whereby the said dean did demise certain premises thereinafter mentioned to the said John Ord and Joseph Planta for a term of forty years, commencing from the 25th of December, 1803, the said John Ord and Joseph Planta, being so possessed of the residue then unexpired of the said term, on the 24th day of March, [286] 1808, by a certain indenture of demise then made, demised, leased, and to farm let to one Shakespeare Reed, certain messuages, lands, and premises in the declaration mentioned, and situate and being in the parish of St. Paul, Shadwell, in the county of Middlesex, to have and to hold the same to the said S. Reed, his executors, administrators, and assigns, for the term of thirty-four years, to be computed from the 2.rith day of December, 1807, yielding and paying for the same, every year during the said last-mentioned term of thirty-four years, to the said J. Ord and J. Planfca, their executors, administrators, or assigns, the clear yearly rent of 451. 10s. ; by virtue of which said demise the aaid S. Reed entered into possession on the 24th March, 1808. The declaration further stated, that the said J. Ord and J. Plauta, being possessed of the reversion of the said tenements and premises immediately expectant on the said term so granted to the said S, Reed, afterwards, on the 3rd October, 1811, by an indenture then made, assigned all their right, title, and interest in the residue then unexpired of the aaid term of forty years, to Robert Hartshorn Barber and Francis Charles Parry, thfiir executors, administrators, and assigns. And further, that after the said last-mentioned indenture had been made, and during the said term so granted to Shakespeare Reed, George Bishop of Lincoln, Dean of Saint, Paul's, being as such dean seised in his demesne as of fee of and in the reversion of and in the said tenements, to wit, of and in the reversion thereof expectant upon the determination of the said term of forty years, afterwards, on the 31st day of August, 1812, by an indenture made between the said dean of the first part, Thomas Bowes, Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorti, of the second part, and John Osborn and John Hurt of the third part, demised the said tenements mentioned to have been demised to the said S. Reed unto the said J. Osborn and J. Burt, their executors, administrators, and assigns, for the term of ninety-nine years from [287] the day next before the day of the date of the last-mentioned indenture. The declaration further stated, that afterwards, on the 6th day of January, 1814, by an indenture then made, the said Robert Hartshorn Barber and Francis Charles Parry, assigned to the said Dean of St. Paul's the said demised tenements, to the intent arid purpose, amongst other things, that the said dean might, with all practicable speed, execute a new lease of the said tenements to John Osborn and John Burt, their executors, administrators, and assigns ; and that afterwards, on the 29th day of January, 1814, by an indenture then made between the said Dean of St. Paul's of the first part, Thomas Bowea of the second part, John Osboru and John Burt 120 LYON V. REED 13 M. &W.288. of the third part, the said J. Osborn arid J. Burt did surrender and yield up to the said dean the said term of ninety-nine years so granted to them, and that, for the considerations therein mentioned, the said dean, for himself and his successors, did demise to the said J. Osborn and J. Burt, their executors, administrators, arid assigns, the said before-named tenements for the term of ninety-nine years, commencing from tt&day next before the day of the date of the said last-mentioned indenture The declaration then proceeded to trace the title, by divers mesne assignments, fnom Osborn and Burt to the present plaintiff. It then alleged that the rent claimed accrued due partly in the lifetime of the testator, and partly since his decease, whilst the- premises were in the possession of the defendants as his executors ; and that the rant was unpaid, whereby the action accrued. The defendants pleaded, first, that at the time of making the said indenture of the 31st August, 1812, the said dean was not seised in his demesne as of fee of and in the reversion of and in the said tenements in the declaration mentioned, expectant upon the determination of the said term of forty years; secondly, that the said dean did not [288] demise unto the said John Osborn and John Burt, their executors, administrators, and assigns, the said tenements for the term of ninety-nine years from the day before the day of the date of the said indenture of the 31st August, 1812; thirdly, that the said Barber and Parry did not, to such intent as in the declaration alleged, assign the said tenements to the said dean; fourthly, that the said J. Osborn and J. Burt did not, by the said indenture mentioned, surrender to the said dean the said term of ninety-nine years; upon all which pleas issues were joined. The defendants pleaded fifthly, that the said Dean of St. Paul's being seised in his demesne as of fee of and in the reversion of and in the said tenements expectant upon the determination of the said term of forty years in the declaration mentioned, commencing on the 25th of December, 1803, after the making of the said indenture of: the 3rd of October, 1811, and before the making of the said indenture of the 31st day of August, 1812, and also before the making of the said indenture of the 29th day of January, 1814, on the 7th day of April, 1812, by a certain indenture then made between the said dean on the one part, and the said John Ord and Joseph Plftnta on the other part, for and in consideration of (amongst other things) the sum of 6300, then paid by the said J. Ord and J. Planta, the said dean did grant unto them the reversion of and in the last-mentioned premises, for the term of forty years from the feast-day of the Nativity of our Lord Christ, in the year of our Lord 1811, by: virtue of which last indenture, and by force of the statute made for transferring uses into possession, the last-mentioned reversion became arid was vested in John Ord an^ J. Plaritaj and remained and continued so vested from thence until arid after the making of the said indenture of the said 31st day of August, 1812, also until and after the making of the said indenture of the 6th day of January, 1814, and [289] also until and after the time of making the said indenture of the 29th day of January, 1814. ; The defendants pleaded, sixthly, that the said dean did not demise unto the said J. Osborn and: J. Burt, their executors, administrators, and assigns, the said tenements of the said term of ninety-nine years, commencing from the clay next before the day of the date of the said indenture of the 29th day of January, 1814; upon which issue was joined. ,To the fifth plea the plaintiff replied, that after the making of the said indenture of the 7th day of April, 1812, and before the said indenture of the 31st day of August, 1812, on the 22nd day of July, 1812, by a certain act of Parliament then made in the; 52nd year of the reign of King George 3, intituled " An Act to enable the Dean of $t. Paul, London, to grant a Lease of Messuages, Tenements, Lands, and Hereditia-mejits, in the Parish of St. Paul...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v Rochdale Borough Council
...it is accepted that the lease was surrendered by operation of law. The principle is clearly set out in the judgment of Baron Parke in Lyon v Reed (1844) 13 M & W 285 at p.306 where he said "….all the old cases will be found to depend on the principle to which we have adverted,namely, an act......
-
Decision Nº ACQ 452 2009. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 06-10-2015
...(Earl) [1762] 1 Bro PC 341, 1 ER 608 Heard v Piley [1868-1869] LR 4 Ch App 548 Worboys v Carter [1987] 2 EGLR 1 (CA) Lyon v Reed [1844] 13 M&W 285 Holme v Brunskill [1878] 3 QBD 495 Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) LR 21 Ch D9 INTERIM DECISION Introduction These three references concern the compulso......
-
Ealing Family Housing Association Ltd v McKenzie
...In Allen and Another v Rochdale Borough Council [2000] Ch 221, at 229, this court referred to the judgment of Parke B in Lyon v Reed (1844) 13 M & W 285, 306 to 307, as setting out the principles by reference to which a tenancy will be regarded as surrendered by operation of law. I will cit......
- Levingston v Somers [Supreme Court.]
-
Damages
...objections to title, failing which the vendor must return the deposit but is not otherwise liable). 43 See, for example, Lyon v Reed (1844), 13 M & W 285, 153 ER 118 (Ex); Phene v Popplewell (1862), 12 CB (NS) 334, 142 ER 1171 (CP); Attorney General of Saskatchewan v Whiteshore Salt & Chemi......