Penton against Robart
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 November 1801 |
| Date | 23 November 1801 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 302
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 4 Esp. 33. Not followed, Leader v. Homewood, 1858, 5 C. B. N. S. 553. Discussed, Barff v. Probyn, 1895, 64 L. J. Q. B. 559. Followed, Mears v. Callender [1901], 2 Ch. 396. Referred to, Leschallas v. Woolf[1908], 1 Ch. 652.
penton against eobart. Monday, Nov. 23d, 1801. To trespass for breaking and entering, &c. and pulling down and taking away certain buildings, &c. The defendant as to the breaking and entering suffered judgment by default, and pleaded not guilty as to the rest. Held that such plea was sustained by shewing that the building taken away, which was of wood, was erected by him as tenant of the premises on a foundation of brick, for the purpose of carrying on his trade, and that he still continued in possession of the premises at the time when, &c. though the term was then expired. [S. C. 4 Esp. 33. Not followed, Leader v. Homewood, 1858, 5 C. B. N. S. 553. Discussed, Bar/ v. Probyn, 1895, 64 L. J. Q. B. 559. Followed, Hears v. Callender [1901], 2 Ch. 396. deferred to, Leschallas v. /Foe//[1908], 1 Ch. 652.] Trespass for breaking and entering a certain yard and divers buildings, &c. of the plaintiff at Battlebridge in the county of Middlesex, and there without the leave and licence of the plaintiff breaking down and pulling to pieces the said buildings, &c. and the materials of a certain fence belonging to the said yard, and for taking away certain timbers, bricks, lead, &e. and disposing thereof to the defendant's use. As to the breaking and entering the yard, the defendant suffered judgment by default, and as to the rest of the trespasses, pleaded the general issue. At the trial before Lord Kenyon C.J. at Westminster it appeared that certain land, including the spot in question, had been let for a term by the plaintiff to one Gray, whose executors had let off part to one Cotterell, under whom the defendant was in possession as an under tenant; having had permission from Cotterell to erect a building thereon for the purpose of making varnish. This building had a brick foundation let into the ground, with a chimney belonging to it, upon which a superstructure of wood, brought from another place where the defendant had carried on -his business, was raised, in which the defend-[89]-ant carried on his trade. The original term expired at Michaelmas 1800, in consequence of a proper notice to quit given by the plaintiff to the executors of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New Zealand Government Property Corporation v HM & S. Ltd
...the tenant remains entitled to remove the "tenant's fixtures" so long as he remains in possession. That was decided in Penton v. Robart (1801) 2 East 88. Robart was under-tenant of a yard and buildings at Battlebridge. During his sub-tenancy he erected a wooden shed for the purpose of makin......
-
Official Receiver (as liquidator of Allied Cocoa Industries Pte Ltd (in liquidation)) v Chi Man Kwong and Others
...the tenant remains entitled to remove the `tenant`s fixtures` so long as he remains in possession. That was decided in Penton v Robart (1801) 2 East 88. Robart was under-tenant of a yard and buildings at Battlebridge. During his sub-tenancy he erected a wooden shed for the purpose of making......
-
Greene v Cole
...of the party entitled; which severance may be made, even after the expiration of his interest, if he have not quitted possession. 2 East. 88, Penton v. Robart. But if he quit the premises, leaving the fixtures annexed to the freehold, he cannot recover their- value in trover, which lies onl......
-
Leader v Homewood
...Russell, 1 B. & Ad. 394; Weeton v. Woodcock, 7 M. & W. 14; Boffey v. Henderson, 17 Q. B. 574; and the principal case. In Penton v. Robart, 2 East, 88, this rule was somewhat enlarged; for, in that case, it was decided that a tenant who had remained in possession after the expiration of his ......