Richardson v Langridge
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 November 1811 |
| Date | 09 November 1811 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 128 E.R. 277
Common Pleas Division
4 TAUNT. 12A. RICHARDSON V. LANGRIDGE 277 other, their gross and culpable negligence I but still the sea did the mischief. It is reasonable enough that the Plaintiffs should permit the Defendant to use their names as Plaintiffs against the owners or crew of the "Margaret," so as to recover whatever the Plaintiffs would be entitled to as against the "Margaret," and to apply it in diedaution of their loss ; but it would lead to endless discussion, if it were required that no cause except the, cause of loss alleged ir, the declaration should be conducive to the loss. HEATH J. If this doctrine were to prevail, it might go still further, and it might be contended, that if a [128] master conducts his ship so unskilfully as to run it on a rock, that is not a peril of the sea, but a peril of the unskilfulness of the master. Rule refused. RICHARDSON V. LANCRIDDE, Nov. 9, 1811. If au agreement be made, to let premises so long as both parties like, and reserving a compensation, accruing de die in diem, and not referable to a year, or any aliquot part of a year, it does not create a holding from year to year, but a tenancy at will, strictly so called.And though the tenant has expended money on the improvement.of the premises, that does not give him a term to bold until he is indemnified. Trespass for breaking and entering a stable of the Plaintiff', and breaking to pieces the doors and looks, and tearing down, damaging, and destroying the bins, trough; and mangers of the Plaintiff, and locking up the stable, and expelling the Defendant from his possession. The Defendant pleaded, first, not guilty ; secondly, that R. Crossley, being seised in fee of the premises by indenture demised to the Defendant, among other things, the stable, for a term of 21 years yet unexpired, by virtue whereof the Defendant entered and was possessed, and by reason of such possession justified the riots complained of in the declaration. The Plaintiff confessing the seisin of Crossley, and the lease to the Defendant, replied, that the Defendant afterwards, and during the said term of 21 years, demised to the Plaintiff the said stable with the appurtenances, to hold to the- Plaintiff during a certain term, that is to say, for so long a time as they, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, should respectively please, the Plaintiff rendering to the Defendant a certain compensation between them in that hehaff agreed upon for the same, by virtue of which demise the Plaintiff entered and was possessed, until the Defendant afterwards and during the continuance of the said term, and interest of the Plaintiff therein of his own wrong committed the said several trespasses. The Defendant, apprehending that the demise laid in the plea was deserip, tive of a holding from year to year, instead of rejoining [129] that he had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mohammed Arshad Alam v Pervez Alam
...rounded down to £148,000. On this basis, WWF Rusholme can be taken to have become entitled to a yearly tenancy, Richardson v Langridge (1811) 4 Taunt. 128, 131. 686 The next question is whether WWF Rusholme's tenancy has terminated. Since there is no evidence that AIL has ever taken action ......
-
Duppa, Executor of Baskerville v Mayo
...stable, and the defendant should have all the dung for a compensation, there being no reservation referable to any aliquot part of a year. 4 Taunt. 128, Richardson v. Langridge. Under an agreement " that the tenant shall always be subject to quit at three months' notice," he is not tenant f......
- Landale v Menzies
-
Wright v Tracey
...Smaridge 7 Q. B. 958. Doe v. Smaridge 7 Q. B. 957. Clayton v. BlakeyENR 8 T. R. 3. Doe v. Wells 10 A. & E. 427. Richardson v. LangridgeENR 4 Taunt. 128. Doe v. Cox 11 Q. B. 122. Doe v. DaviesENR 7 Exch. 89. Jones v. MillsENR 10 C. B. N. S. 788. Oxley v. JamesENR 13 M. & W. 214. Jones v. Mil......