Piggott v Stratton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 November 1859 |
| Date | 12 November 1859 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 45 E.R. 271
BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR LORD CAMPBELL AND THE LORDS JUSTICES.
S. C. Johns. 341; L. J. Ch. 1; 1 L. T. 111; 6 Jur. (N. S.), 129; 8 W. R. 13. Distinguished, Martin v. Spicer, 1886-88, 34 Ch. D. 12, 14 App. Cas. 22. See Maddison v. Alderson, 1883, 8 App. Cas. 473; Mackenzie v. Childers, 1889, 43 Ch. D. 277.
[33] piggott v. stratton. Before the Lord Chancellor Lord Campbell and the Lords Justices. Nmi. 3, 4, 12, 1859. [S. C. Johns. 341; 29 L. J. Ch. 1 ; 1 L. T. Ill; 6 Jur, (N. S.), 129; 8 W. R. 13. Distinguished, Men-tin v. Spicer, 1886-88, 34 Ch. D. 12, 14 App. Gas. 22. See Maddiscm v. AWersan, 1883, 8 App. Cas. 473; Mackenzie v. Childers, 1889, 43 Ch. D. 277.] The Defendant held two plots of building land, B and C, under a lease which contained a covenant to build the houses not less than thirty feet apart, the effect of which was to secure to houses on plot B a sea view over plot C. H. having entered into a treaty with the Defendant for an under-lease of B, made inquiries of the Defendant as to what could be built on the land in front. The Defendant replied that he the Defendant could not build on C closer than thirty feet, as his lease did not allow it. H. after having inspected the original lease took an under-lease of B, containing a covenant by the Defendant that he, his executors, administrators and assigns, would observe the lessee's covenants in the original lease. The Defendant afterwards surrendered his lease to the ground landlord, took a new lease not containing the old restrictions, and commenced building on C in a way which would obstruct the sea view from houses on B belonging to the Plaintiff, who was the assignee of H. Held, that the rights of H., under the Defendant's covenant to observe the covenants in the original lease, were not effected by the Defendant's surrender of that lease, and that the Plaintiff was on that ground entitled to an injunction to restrain the Defendant from building in contravention of those covenants. Held, further, that even if by reason of the surrender the covenant was gone, the Plaintiff was entitled to an injunction on equitable grounds, for that what the Defendant had said to H. amounted to a representation, that the Defendant could not during the term of his lease build otherwise than in a particular way, which representation he was bound to make good. J on-den v. Money', 5 H. Lords Cas. 185, explained. This was a decree by the Defendant Stratton from a decree made by Vice-Chancellor Wood, restraining the Defendants Stratton and Harbour from building on a certain piece of land any messuages not standing alone and detached, or not having between every two of them an open space of thirty feet at least. By an indenture of lease, dated the 12th of November 1845, and made between the late Sir Richard Simeon of the one part, and the Defendant Stratton of the other part, in consideration of the rents and covenants therein contained and reserved on the lessee's part to be paid and performed, Sir Richard Simeon demised to Stratton, his executors, administrators and assigns, three pieces of land on the sea coast in the Isle of Wight, marked in the plan drawn in the margin, of the indenture with the letters [34] A, B and C, for the term of 999 years, from the 6th of July 1845. This indenture contained (amongst other covenants) covenants by StrattoD, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, with Sir Richard Simeon, his heirs and assigns, that Stratton, his executors, administrators and assigns, should, within the period of three years, to be computed from the 6th of July 1845, build and completely finish, in a substantial and workmanlike mauner, upon, some part of the premises, at least two good and substantial brick or stone: messuages or dwelling-houses, with suitable outbuildings, and which, in the opinion of the surveyor for the time being of Sir Richard Simeon, his heirs or assigns, should be of the value of 1500 each, at the least; and that in case Stratton, his executors, administrators, under-tenants or assigns, should build on the premises more than two messuages, then each additional messuage should be substantially built of brick 272 PIGGOTT V. STBATTON IDEO.F.ft J.35. or stone, and should be, in the opinion of- the surveyor, of the value of 500 at the least; and that every such additional messuage or dwelling-house should stand alone and detached ; and that between every iwa such additional messuages or buildings there should lie an open spate of thirty feet at the least. The lands comprised in the above lease were situate near the seashore. The piece of land marked C lay between the piece of land marked B and the sea, and was the only land upon which buildings could be erected so as to obstruct the sea view from houses built upon the piece of land marked B. After the granting of this lease, Stratton entered into negociations with several persons to grant them under-leases of portions of the property, and, amongst others, with the Defendant Harbour for an under-lease of part of plot B, for the purpose of building marine villas upon [35] it. Harbour, who was a builder, asked Stratton what buildings could be erected on plot C. Stratton replied that he (Stratton) could not build houses on C at a less distance than thirty feet from each other, because his lease forbade his doing so. Harbour inspected the draft of the lease, and being satisfied with such a restriction as to the houses to be built on plot C, he agreed to take the under-lease, and by an indenture dated the 17th of December 1851, and made between Stratton of the one part, and Harbour of the other part, in consideration of the rents and covenants thereinafter reserved and contained on the lessee's part to be paid and performed, Stratton demised and leased to Harbour a portion of the piece of land marked B, for the term of 970 years, at the yearly rent of 18. And in the same indenture was contained a covenant by Harbour with Stratton, that he Harbour would, within one year from the date thereof, erect and completely finish, in a substantial and workmanlike manner, a good substantial stone or brick messuage or dwelling-house on some part of the land thereby demised, and which, in the opinion of the surveyor for the time being of Sir Richard Simeon, or his heirs, should be of the value of 300 at the least, or, in lieu of such house, should build two semi-detached dwelling-houses under the same roof, which together should, in the opinion of the same surveyor, be worth 500. And, by the same under-lease, after a recital that the land thereby demised was (with other lands) granted and demised by Sir Eichard Simeon to Stratton by an indenture of lease of the 12th of November 1845, for the term of 999 years, subject to the rent and covenants therein reserved and contained, Stratton, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, covenanted with Harbour, his executors, administrators and assigns, would thenceforth pay the rent and observe [36] the lessee's covenants reserved and contained in the same lease, and effectually keep indemnified Harbour, his executors, administrators and assigns, therefrom and from all actions, suits and other proceedings, loss, costs, charges, damages and expenses by reason of the non-payment or non-performance of the same rent and covenants, or either of them, or by reason of any other matter or thing relating thereto. Harbour, by the same indenture, covenanted with Stratton to perform, on his part, as to the land in the under-lease, the covenants contained in the original lease of November 1845. Upon obtaining this under-lease, Harbour proceeded to erect two semi-detached messuages on the piece of land therein comprised ; and by an indenture dated the 15th of November 1853, he assigned the land, with the messuages upon it, to the Plaintiff, her executors, administrators and assigns, for the then residue of the term of 970 years granted by the under-lease of the 17th of December 1851, subject to the rent and covenants. In the year 1854, Stratton surrendered the original lease of the 12th of November 1845 to Sir John Simeon, the successor of Sir Richard Simeon, and, in consideration of such surrender, obtained from Sir John a new lease of the property therein comprised, with covenants as to building differing from those contained in the original lease, and so as to allow of his building upon the land marked C without keeping an interval of thirty feet between every two of the buildings to be erected by him. On the 2d of June 1857, Stratton under-let to the Defendant Perkis a part of the land marked C, lying opposite to Mrs. Piggott's houses. Perkis some time afterwards parted with his interest to Harbour, who, with Stratton's concurrence, and as it wag stated under an indemnity from him, commenced building on this piece [37] of grotmd houses at a much less interval than thirty feet from each other, though in iDEOvF. &J.38. PIGGOTT' V. -ST.RATTON 273 accordance with the terms of the lease from Sir John Simeon to Stratton. These houses were so placed that when completed they would shut out the sea view from the Plaintiffs houses, which view would not have been seriously affected if they had been built thirty feet apart. The Plaintiff then filed her bill against Stratton and Perkis to restrain, such building, and on Harbour's interest being discovered he was made a party by amendment. On the 18th of November 1858, the Plaintiff obtained an interlocutory injunction against Harbour. On the 19th of April 1859, the case was heard on motion for decree, and Vice-Chancellor Wood made a decree (Johns. 341) dismissing the bill without costs as against Perkis, continuing the injunction Against Harbour for the residue of his term of 970 years, and granting an injunction to restrain Stratton during the term of 970 years, his workmen, servants and agents, from building on the piece of land marked...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pennell v Payne
...400. (I reject his submission that clear hints of it emerge from the earlier decisions in Doe d. Beadon -v- Pyke (1816) (M&S 146) and Piggott -v- Stratton (1859) (1 De. G.F.& J. 24 Mellor -v- Watkins concerned the effect of a surrender of a lease on the interest of a sub-lessee. There was n......
-
Graham v Craig
...Ch. D. 266. Martin v. SpicerELR 34 Ch. D. 1. Nottingham Patent Brick and Tile Company v. ButlerELR 16 Q. B. D. 778. Pigott v. StrattonENR Johnson, 341. Renals v. CowlishawELRELR 9 Ch. D. 125; 11 Ch. D. 866. Rogers v. HosegoodUNK [1900] 16 Times L. R., 20, 489. Spicer v. MartinELR 14 App. Ca......
-
Walsh (Philomena) v Lester (Hector) and Lester (Claire)
...Professor Scamell cites a number of authorities in support of his opinion, including Piggott v Stratton [1859] 1 De Gex Fisher and Jones 33,45 ER 271 J, Western v Macdermott [1866 -67] LR 2 Ch App 72 and Crawley v Woolf [1888] 4 TLR 434 CA. In each of these cases the court was enforcing cov......
-
Traill v Baring
...them has been discussed at large in Hammersley v. De, Bid (12 Cl. & Fin. 45); Jorden v. Money (5 H. L. Ca. 185); Piggott v. Strattm (1 De G. F. & J. 33); Lqffus v. Maw (3 Giff. 592); Huttm v. Eossiter (1 De G. M. & G. 9). But that question does not arise here. The present Plaintiffs are not......
-
Hawaii
...employer’s termination of a pension plan after liquidation of the company. Citing Ailetcher v. Beneficial Finance Co . 340 and Rosa v. Johnson , 341 the court upheld a directed verdict on this claim because it was unable to conclude that the company’s negligent misrepresentations constitute......