Parmenter v Webber
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 November 1818 |
| Date | 23 November 1818 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 129 E.R. 515
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 2 Moore, 656. Followed, Beardman v. Wilson, 1868, L. R. 4 C. P. 58. Distinguished, Hyde v. Warden, 1877, 3 Ex. D. 83. Followed, Lewis v. Baker, [1905] 1 Ch. 46.
cordwent v. hunt. Nov. 24, 1818. [S. C. 2 Moore, 660.] Plaintiff, lessee of a farm, covenanted with the Defendant, his lessor, to fetch and bring all such materials as should at any time during the continuance of the term be wanted in erecting a thrashing mill; which mill the Defendant covenanted with the Plaintiff to erect during the continuance of the term, for the use of the lessee and the occupiers of an adjoining farm. The Defendant pleaded, first, that within a reasonable time from the date of the indenture, and during the continuance of the term, he began to provide the necessary materials for erecting the mill, and whilst he was so doing, the Plaintiff desired him not to erect the same, but to refrain from so doing until he should be requested by the Plaintiff; and, lastly, a plea of leave and licence during the term: Held, on special demurrer, that both these pleas were bad. The Plaintiff declared in covenant, that by indenture of the 27th September, 1813,. made between the Defendant of the one part, and the Plaintiff of the [597] other part, the Defendant demised to the Plaintiff certain premises for nine years next ensuing the 25th March then last past, at a certain rent therein mentioned ; and that the Plaintiff covenanted, that he would, at his own costs, from time to time, and at all times during the continuance of the term, fetch, .carry, and bring all such timber,, atone, &c., and other materials, as should, at any time during the term, be wanted iiv and about the erecting of a new thrashing mill to be driven by water; and that the Defendant covenanted, that he would build and erect, or cause to be built and erected, a new thrashing mill or machine to be driven by water, for the purpose of thrashing corn for the use of the Plaintiff, in common with the occupiers of a farm called Speckington Lower Farm for the time being: that the Plaintiff entered and was possessed, and that though he was ready and willing from time to time, and at all times during the term, at his own costs and charges, to fetch, carry, and bring all such, timber, &c., and other materials, as should be necessary for the purpose of erecting the said thrashing mill; yet that after the making of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beaumont v The Marquis of Salisbury
...v. Barclay (1 Bing. 745); 2 Inst. (p. 146); Hicks v. Downing (1 Lcl. Eaym. 99); Palmer v. Edwards (1 Doug. 187, n.); Pwi-menter v. fibber (8 Taunt. 593); Preece v. Carrie, (5 Bing, 24); Spencer's mse (5 Co. Rep. 16; 1 Smith's Lead. Gas. 22) ; Cottee v. BirJmrdson (7 Exeh. Rep. 143); Throckm......
-
Floyd v Langfield
...reserved upon an assignment of a term of years; and this case is supported by Smith v. Mapleback, 1 Term Eep. 441. Parmenter v. Webber, 8 Taunt. 593. S. C. 2 B. Moo. C56 : but it must be remarked, firstly, that in the two latter cases (and probably in Cooper's case also), the party distrain......
-
Barrett v Rolph and Another
...v. Holmes was only a nisi prius decision, and is very loosely reported; and Mr. Jarman considers it as overruled by Parmenler v. WM&r (8 Taunt. 593). [Parke, B. It certainly cannot be supported on the ground of the reservation of rent.] And it is equally unsustainable on the ground upon whi......
-
Langford v Selmes
...lessees, and therefore the rent reserved is not incident to any reversion, and there is no power of distress : Parmenter v. Webber (8 Taunt. 593), Thorn v. Woollcorribe (3 B. & Ad. 586). In Pollock v. Stacy (9 Q. B. 1036), where it is said that the relationship of landlord and tenant contin......