Palmer v Bramley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1895 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Landlord and Tenant - Bill of Exchange given for Rent - Suspension of Right of Distress.
The fact of a landlord talking a bill of exchange from his tenant for rent due is some evidence of an agreement by the landlord to suspend his remedy by distress during the currency of the bill.
APPEAL from the judgment of a Divisional Court on appeal from the county court of Leicestershire.
The action was one of replevin. It appeared that one Knight was tenant to the defendant of certain premises at a rent of 80l. a year payable quarterly at the usual quarter-days. On December 25, 1894, a quarter's rent fell due and was not paid. On February 14, 1895, the defendant suggested that Knight should give him a bill of exchange for 40l. payable two months after date in respect of the overdue rent and of the accruing quarter's rent, which Knight accordingly did. On February 20 Knight assigned all his property to the plaintiff as trustee for the benefit of Knight's creditors. On March 19, during the currency of the bill of exchange, the defendant put in a distress for the quarter's rent due in the previous December. The plaintiff thereupon brought this action. The county court judge considered that he was bound by the decision in Davis v. GydeF1 to hold that the mere giving of the bill was no evidence of the suspension of the right of the landlord to distrain. He therefore withdrew the case from the jury, and entered judgment for the defendant.
The plaintiff appealed.
The Divisional Court (Wright and Kennedy JJ.) directed a new trial on the ground that Davis v. GydeF1 was not an authority that an agreement to suspend the landlord's remedy by distress may not be inferred from the fact of his taking a bill or note for the rent due. Leave to appeal was given, and the defendant appealed.
T. H. Walker, for the defendant. The mere fact of a bill being given by the tenant and accepted by the landlord is not evidence of an agreement by him to suspend his right of distress: Davis v. Gyde.F1 Such an agreement must be proved aliunde, and there was no evidence in this case of any such agreement. The bill of exchange was a collateral remedy only; and though the fact of its currency might affect the landlord's right of action, it did not limit his right to distrain. [He also cited Baker v. WalkerF2; Drake v. MitchellF3; Davidson v. Allen.F4]
Toller, for the plaintiff, was not called on.
KAY L.J. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Silven Properties Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc
...payment dependent upon the cheque being cleared or upon payment of the bill on maturity: see e.g. Re Romer and Haslam [1893] 2 QB 286; Palmer v. Bramley [1895] 2 QB 405. In the present case the cheque was never even presented for payment by Silven and was returned to Refuge in order to be r......
-
Baker v Walker
...IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER Baker and Walker S. C. 3 D. & L. 46; 14 L. J. Ex. 371. Referred to, Palmer v. Bramley, [1895] 2 Q. B. 405; In re a Debtor, [1907] 1 K. B. 348. [4(}5] BAKER . walker. June 27, 1845.- To tin action against the maker of a : promissory note payab......