Parish v Sleeman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 January 1860 |
| Date | 12 January 1860 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 45 E.R. 385
BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR LORD CAMPBELL.
S. C. 1 Giff. 238; 29 L. J. Ch. 53, 96; 6 Jur. (N. S.), 385; 8 W. R. 166. See Jeffrey v. Neale, 1871, L. R. 6 C. P. 243.
[326] parish v. sleeman. Before the Lord Chancellor Lord Campbell. Jan. 11, 12, 1860. [S. C. 1 Giff. 238; 29 L. J. Ch. 53, 96; 6 Jur. (N. S.), 385; 8 W. R. 166. See Jeffrey v. Neale, 1871, L. E. 6 C. P. 243.] Upon the construction of an agreement to demise a farm for fourteen years, " at the yearly rent of .40, payable quarterly, free of all outgoings;" and by which the parties agreed " to grant and accept a lease on the above and other usual terms : " Held, that the landlord was entitled to a net rent, payable free of laud tax and; tithe commutation rent charge. This was the appeal of the Defendant from the refusal of Vice-Chancellor Stuart to vary his chief clerk's certificate approving of the terms of a draft lease of a farm in pursuance of a written agreement, the frame of the draft lease having thrown on, the lessor the tithe commutation and the land tax. The case is reported, upon the hearing of the motion before the Vice-Chancellor to vary the certificate, in the first volume of Mr. GHffard's Reports (page 238). On the 3d of October 1851 Samuel Rowles Pattison, who was seised for an equitable estate in fee-simple in possession of the farm, entered into the following written agreement with the Plaintiff:- " The undersigned Samuel Rowles Pattison, as landlord, hereby agrees to let, and the undersigned Joseph Parish to take, as tenant, all the farm in and called Tinnye in the parish of Bridgerule, late in the occupation of Thomas Leigh and now of the said landlord, for a term of fourteen years from Lady Day next, determinable at the end of the first seven years thereof, at the yearly rent of 40, payable quarterly, free of all outgoings." After other stipulations, not material to be stated, the agreement concluded thus:- [327] " The said parties agree to grant and accept a lease on the above and other usual terms. " Dated the 3d of October 1851. (Signed) " R. S. pattison. "The mark of + joseph parish." The Plaintiff was at once let into possession of the demised premises, and had ever since continued in possession. In 1857 the estate, both legal and equitable, in the reversion of the premises became vested in Maria Sleeman in fee, in trust for the Defendant, subject to the Plaintiffs tenancy of the farm upon the terms of the agreement. The Plaintiff had regularly paid to Pattison, and those claiming under him, a net rent of 40 a year in respect of the premises; but shortly after Christmas Day 1857, Maria Sleeman, on behalf of the Defendant, distrained upon the Plaintiff for a quarter's rent claimed to C. xxv.-13 386 PARISH V. SLEEMAN 1DB 0. P. tc J. 3SS. he due for the farm on that day, and the Plaintiff accordingly paid 10 in respect of that quarter's rent without deduction, and also the costs of the distress. On the 26th of February 1858 Maria Sleeman conveyed the farm to the Defendant Samuel Sleeman in fee. The Defendant having refused to accede to the Plaintiff's application for a lease pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the Plaintiff instituted the present suit for the specific performance of the agreement, which was resisted by the Defendant on the ground of certain breaches of the agreement, alleged by him to have been committed by the Plaintiff. A decree for specific performance having, howevei, been made, a reference was directed to Chambers in the usual -manner to settle the [328] conveyance under which the chief clerk made the certificate, which the Vice-Chancellor had refused to vary. Upon the appeal, an affidavit was read on behalf of the Plaintiff, in which he deposed that on the occasion of a plaint being entered against him in January 1858 by Maria Sleeman, in the County Court held at Halsworthy in Devonshire, for damages in respect of a breach of one of the stipulations of the agreement, alleged to have been committed by him, he obtained a copy of the agreement in question; that until that time he had never had a copy thereof, nor had any such copy .or the original agreement ever been read or shewn to him ; that he did not remember all the terms of the agreement, and therefore, prior to his having obtained a copy thereof, and in ignorance of its contents and under a misapprehension of hia rights thereunder, he had paid the land tax and some of the rent charges in lieu of tithes which had become due in respect of the farm; that, moreover, Pattison and his immediate successor in title were kind landlords to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In Greene v Thornton
...Hartley v. Hudson 4 C. P. Div. 367. Crosse v. RawELR L. R. 9 Ex. 209. Chaloner v. BolckowELR 3 App. Cas. 933. Parish v. SleemanENR 1 De G. F. & J. 326 Bennett v. WomachENR 7 B. & C. 627. Scovell v. GardinerUNK 16 Ir. C. L. R. 316. Hurst v. HurstENR 4 Ex. 571. Allum v. DickinsonELR 9 Q. B. D......
-
Morrogh v Hall and Another
...and HALL AND ANOTHER Greene v. ThorntonUNK 16 L. R. Ir. 381, 390. Scovell v. GardinerUNK 16 Ir. C. L. R. 318. Parish v. SleemanUNK 1 D. F. & J. 326. Landlord and tenunt Lease Covenant to pay rent over and above all taxes, charges, and impositions Premises of a public nature, or used for cha......