Pitman v Woodbury
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 November 1848 |
| Date | 22 November 1848 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 154 E.R. 732
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
Applied, Wheatley v Boyd, 1851, 7 Ex 20, Swatman v Ambler, 1852, 8 Ex 72 Distinguished, Morgan v Pike, 1854, 14 C B 473
pitman i woodbury Nov 22, 1848 -Declaration in covenant on an indenture bearing date the 2oth of Maich, 1838, made between the plaintiff and the defendant (profert), wheieby the plaintiff then demised to the defendant a certain messuage, with the appuitenances, for the term of seven years, and the defendant did thereby covenant with the plaintiff that he would yearly, and every year during the teim, keep the premises in good tepair, and give them up in good repair, at the end of the term , by virtue of which demise the defendant entered upon and enjoyed the said demised premises The breach laid was for not keeping the premises in repair during the teim The defendant, aftei setting out the deed on oyer, pleaded that his part of the indenture was executed by him after the alleged day of the execution thereof, and that the plaintiff's part was never executed by him, or by any agent of his thereunto lawfully authorised, nor was there ever any demise of the said premises to the defendant, from the said day for the said term, nor was there e\er any lease of any pait of the said pienuses put in writing and signed, or made, signed, sealed, or delivered by the plaintiff, or by any agent of his thereunto lawfully authorised by writing or otherwise , and that, although before the making of the indenture, to wit, on the 25th of March, 18J8, the plaintiff demised the said premises for the term of one year, and so on from year to year, by virtue of which demise the defendant entered and occupied the piemises for a term, to wit, for nine years, which term had ended before the commencement of the suit, the defendant never did occupy the said premises under any demise from the plaintiff other than that last mentioned, or for any term granted by the indenture, and that there never was any consideration for the execution bv the defendant, on brs part, of the indenture, and that his covenant theiem was void Verification -Held, in substance a good answer to the action Qiuere, whether the plea did not amount to an aigumentative denial of the execution of the deed by the defendant [Applied, Wheatley v Boyd, 1851, 7 Ex 20, Swaiman v Amhlei, 1852, 8 Ex 72 Distinguished, Mwgan v Pike, 1854, 14 C 13 47J ] Covenant The declaration stated, that, by a ceitam indenture of the 15th of March, 1838, then made between the plaintiff of the one part, and the defendant of the other part (profert), the plaintiff did demise, lease, and to farm let to the defendant a certain messuage, &c, with the ap-[5]-purtenances, to have and to hold the same to the defendant from the 25th of March, 1838, fot and during and unto the full end and term of seven years thence next ensuing, and the defendant did thereby covenant with the plaintiff, that he, the defendant, would yearly and every year during the said term, new cut, scour, and cleanse all such gutters and diains as were then, or thereafter should be, cut in the said demised premises, and keep the said premises, &c, in good and tenantable repair, being allowed rough timber for the doing thereof, if sufficient could be found on the premises, and also, that the defendant, at the expiration or other sooner determination of the said term, should ,give up the said premises in good repair, by virtue of which demise, the defendant afterwards, to wit, on the 25th of March, 1838, entered into the said demised premises with the appurtenances, and was thereof possessed for the sard term so to him thereof granted as aforesaid, and continued so thereof possessed until, to wit, the 25th of March, 1845, when the said term expired Breach, that the defendant did not nor would, after the making of the said indenture, and during the said term, keep the premises, &c , in good and tenantable lepair, although the plaintiff was at all times ready and willing to allow the defendant rough timber for the doing thereof, whereof the defendant had notice, and on the contrary thereof, the defendant, after the making of the indenture, and during the continuance of the said term, to wit, on &c, and from thence &c , permrtted the said (a) Pollock, C. B, Parke, B, Aldeison, B, and Eolfe, B &EX.6. PITMAN V...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doody v Nolan
...R. 37. Northcote v. UnderhillENR 1 Salk. 199. Pordage v. ColeENR 1 Wms. Saund. 548. Bowes v. CrollENR 6 E. & B. 255. Pitman v. WoodburyENR 3 Ex. 4. Swatman v. AmblerENR 8 Ex. 72. Wood v. The Governor and Company of the Copper Miners in EnglandENR 14 C. B. 428. How v. GreekENR 3 H. & C. 391.......
-
Hutchins v Vaughan
...Crofton v. SholdiceIR 5 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 152. Grey v. Pearson 6 H. L. Cas. 61. Chadwick v. ClarheENR 1 C. B. 700. Pitman v. WoodburyENR 3 Exch. 4. Swatman v. AmblerENR 8 Exch. 72. Warner v. Woodbury 2 Jebb & S. 424. West v. DaviesENR 7 East, 363. COMMON LAW REPORTS. 349' for a week, the de......
-
Babington v O'Connor
...Toler v. SlaterELR L. R. 3 Q. B. 42. Evans v. GreyUNK 9 L. R. Ir. 539. Walton v. WaterhouseENR 2 Wms. Saund. 826. Pitman v. WoodburyENR 3 Exch. 4, 13. Boyle v. MonkUNK 7 Ir. C. L. R. 279. Rose v. PoultonENR 2 B. & A. 822. Soprani v. SkurroENR Yelv. 19. Swatman v. AmblerENR 8 Exch. 72. Walsh......
-
Doe d. Landsell v Gower
...defendant. Cooch v. Goodman (2 Q. B. 580), was under the consideration of the Court of Exchequer in that case, and in Pitman v. Woodbury (3 Exch. 4). (Shee Serjt. read the comments of Parka B., in the latter case (3 Exch. 11-13), upon Cooch v. Gooilman (2 Q. B. 580)). Patteson J. said, in D......