Pocock v Eustace

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date12 June 1809
Date12 June 1809
CourtHigh Court

English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1122

IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS

Pocock
and
Eustace

Considered, North London and General Property Co. v Moy, [1918] 2 K. B. 439.

[181] Second Sittings at Westminster Monday, June 12, 1809. pocock v eustace. (In an action for use and occupation, the property tax will not be deducted at Nisi Pnus from the rent due ) [Considered, North London and General Property Co. v Moy, [1918] 2 K. B. 439.] This was an action for use and occupation, in which the rent the plaintiff sought to recover was clearly proved to be in arrear Wigley for the defendant contended, that the property tax ought to be deducted from the amount of the rent, as the tenant was liable for this in the first instance, and the landlord was bound under a penalty to allow the deduction on demand. Therefore the real sum due was the residue of the rent after the property tax was deducted, and for so much only ought the verdict to pass. Lord Bllenborough -It would be impossible for the business of the Court to be transacted if we were to enter into these calculations at Nisi Pnus. In such an action as this, the plaintiff must recover the amount of the rent in arrear, and the parties must settle out of Court the deductions to which the tenant is entitled. It is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Mƒ€™DONNELL v MURRAY
    • Ireland
    • Exchequer (Ireland)
    • 15 June 1859
    ...1 Burr. 452. Camidge v. AllenbyENR 6 B. & C. 373. Robson v. Oliver 10 Q. B. 704. Grant v. VaughanENR 3 Burr. 1516. Beven v. HillENR 2 Camp. 181. Robson v. BennettENR 2 Taunt. 388. COMMON LAW REPORTS. 495 us, to sustain that finding, and now consents to have it struck out M. T. 1859, . from ......
  • Baker v Davis
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court
    • 17 December 1813
    ...paid to the tax-gatherer before the action was commenced. Burrough, for the plaintifi, contended, on the authority of Poeock v. Eustace, 2 Campb. 181, that the property tax could not be deducted from the rent, in settling thfe amount of the damages in an action for use and occupation. Lord ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT