Northcote against Duke
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 June 1765 |
| Date | 17 June 1765 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 330
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Lib. Reg. 1764, B. fo. 403. S. C. 2 Eden, 314.
Case 249.-northcote against duke. 17th June 1765. Clause in a lease for three lives, to prevent the lessee, or his executors, &c., from letting above seven years without license of lessor. The third life being in possession under his father's will, and being his executor, leased for 14 years. Held, no forfeiture; for he had no notice of the condition. And as the lease could not extend beyond the life of the lessor, it could not pass an interest for 14 years certain.-[Lib. Reg. 1764, B. fo. 403. S. C. 2 Eden, 314.] Plaintiff's father was lessee for three lives, of which the plaintiff was now the only surviving one. In the lease there; was a proviso, That if the lessee, his executors or AMB. 512. NORTHCOTE V. BUKE 331 assigns, [512] should at any time lease the premises for more than seven years (except it should be by hia.oj theirlast .-will, and to and for the use of any wife or child), without the licence of the landlord in writing, it should be lawful for the landlord to re-enter and repossess. In 1752, the plaintiff being entitled under the will of his father, subject to certain charges for his mother, and brother, and sisters, and creditors, leased for 14 years, without licence. The landlord threatened to bring an ejectment. Bill for relief to be quieted, and to enjoin the defendant from proceeding at.law, stating, That the plaintiff had not the original lease in his custody, and was in fact a stranger to the proviso. It was argued by Mr. Yorke,. for the plaintiff, That the lease was not avoided at law, the exception in the lease being a dispensation of the proviso; and once a dis-.penation always so, according to Dumper's case, 4 Co. (119; and the cases of Hack v. Leonard,. 9 Mod. 90. Cage,-v. Russel, 2 Vent. 352, were cited). 2dly, If the: lease is void at Law, Equity will relieve. On the other side, it was said not to be like Dumper's case : for here the exception is part..of the. deed itself; and that Equity can only relieve where a pecuniary compensation can be made. That this being a voluntary breach, is another reason against relief in Equity. (Wafer v. Mocato, ib. 112, were cited.) Lord Northinglon, Chancellor. The executor, who made the lease for 14 years, took the general personal estate under the will, without knowing the particular circumstances relative to the lease of this estate. The lease itself...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanders v Pope
...v. Mocatto (9 Mod. 112), Rose v. Rose (Amb. 331) ; and it has been extended beyond involuntary, to wilful, breaches : Northcote v. Duke (Amb. 511). In Hack v. Leonard the covenant was, generally, to repair. This is rather analogous to the case of a stipulation to employ a specific sum for a......
-
Shearman v McGregor
...v. Turner (13 Sim. 477), Eaton v. Lyon (3 Ves. 689), Seton v. Slade (1 Ves. 265), Hill v. Barclay (18 Ves. 56), JVorfA-[115]-cofe v. Duke (Amb. 511), Beech v. Ford (7 Hare, 208), and Winthrop v. Murray (8 Hare, 214). the vice-chancellor [Sir W. Page Wood] said there was a fallacy in the rea......
-
Attorney General & Blair v Cholmley
...the ordinary was a party, and a decree to bind the right. (Note : The decree was in a suit instituted, C. VII.-11* 330 NORTHCOTE V. DUKE AMB. 511. by consent, between the same persons that were parties to the agreement, to which the ordinary but not the patron was a party.) Lord Northington......
-
Bracebridge v Buckley
...Equity will relieve in almost all cases of forfeiture, if they can put the parties in as good a condition. In A'o/rtkmte v. Duke (1st Ambler, 511) also, it is held, that "Equity will relieve, if there can be a compensation." The Chancellor also says, "I think the Court may relieve where a t......