Moule v Garrett
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1865 |
| Date | 1865 |
| Year | 1865 |
| Court | Exchequer |
Assignment of Lease - Liability of ultimate Assignee to indemnify original Lessee against Breach of Covenant.
An assignee of a lease by mesne assignments is under an obligation to indemnify the original lessee against breaches of covenant in the lease, committed during the continuance of his own tenancy; and that obligation is not affected by the covenants which the assignee may have made with his immediate assignor.
The plaintiff was lessee of certain premises under a lease containing a covenant to keep in repair. He assigned the lease to B., who assigned it to the defendants. The assignment from the plaintiff to B., and from B. to the defendants, contained express covenants with the immediate assignors respectively, to indemnify them against all subsequent breaches. Whilst the defendants were in possession they committed breaches of the covenant to keep in repair, in respect of which the lessor recovered damages from the plaintiff. In an action to recover over these damages against the defendants:—
Held, affirming the judgment of the Court below, that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed.
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Exchequer, making absolute a rule to enter a verdict for the plaintiff.
The action was brought by the original lessee of certain premises, to recover from the defendants, the ultimate assignees of the term, a sum of money which the plaintiff had been compelled to pay to the lessor, in respect of dilapidations which occurred during the tenancy of the defendants.
At the trial a verdict was entered for the defendants, with leave to the plaintiff to move to enter a verdict for him for 75l., if the Court should be of opinion that, upon the evidence, he was entitled to succeed. This rule was obtained, and was, after argument, made absolute by the Court of Exchequer (Channell and Pigott, BB.; Cleasby, B., dissenting).F1 The defendants appealed.
The facts and pleadings are fully stated in the report of the case in the court below.
R. D. Bennett (Manisty, Q.C., with him), for the defendants. In order to make a defendant liable upon a covenant, there must be either privity of contract or privity of estate with the plaintiff:
Platt on Covenants, p. 493. Here the defendants were liable to their assignor by virtue of privity of contract, and to the lessor by virtue of privity of estate; but between them and the plaintiff there is privity neither of contract nor of estate. The authorities on which the plaintiff relies are the dictum in Wolveridge v. StewardF2 and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goodman v Minister for Finance
...& DOVER RAILWAY CO V SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY CO 1893 AC 429 EAST CORK FOODS LTD V O'DWYER STEEL CO LTD 1978 IR 103 MOULE V GARRETT 1872 LR 7 EX 101 O'ROURKE V REVENUE COMMISSIONERS 1996 2 IR 1 PHIPPS V BOARDMAN 1967 2 AC 46 FOLENS V MIN FOR EDUCATION 1984 ILRM 265 PMPA (CARRICK) LTD V PM......
-
PM Law Ltd v Motorplus Ltd and Others
...should be left out of pocket by having to discharge what was the defendants' debt.' 65 Thus the principles set out by Cockburn CJ in Moule v Garrett at page 104 come into play and apply here so that GWM can recover from Templeton the amount which it paid for which Templeton was primarily ......
- Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd
-
Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd
...(No. 2) [1963] P 64. Lumley v Gye (1853) 2 El & Bl 216; 118 ER 749. Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] AC 619. Moule v Garrett (1872) LR 7 Ex 101. O'Neill v Phillips [1999] 1 WLR 1092. O'Sullivan v Williams [1992] 3 All ER 385. OBG Ltd v Allan [2007] UKHL 21; [2008] AC 1. Peak Hotel......
-
Solicitors' PI and ATE Insurance: A Cautionary Tale
...from Templeton the amount which Templeton would have been liable to pay (in accordance with the principles set out in Moule v Garrett (1872) LR 7 Ex 101 and Owen v Tate (1976) QB 402). Templeton's cross Templeton denied liability under all of the above bases. It also counterclaimed against ......
-
The free assets of the company and when they are free to take: equitable subrogation and the secured creditor.
...Law in Australia (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2nd ed, 2008) 243-52 [625]-[636]. White J notes at 422, [61], quoting Moule v Garrett [1872] LR 7 Ex 101, 104 (Cockburn CJ), quoting Stephen Martin Leake, Principles of the Law of Contracts (Stevens & Sons, 1867) 41: Where the plaintiff has bee......