Roe, on The Demise of Bamford, against Hayley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 June 1810 |
| Date | 27 June 1810 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 104 E.R. 181
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Referred to, Williams v. Earle, 1868, L. R. 3 Q. B. 750.
[464] roe, on the demise of BAMFOKD, against hayley. Wednesday, June 27th, 1,810. A proviso in a lease for 21 years, that if either of the parties shall be desirous to determine it in 7 or 14 years, it shall be lawful for either of them, his executors or administrators, so to do, upon 12 months' notice to the other of them, his heirs, executors, or administrators, extends, by reasonable intendment, to the devisee of the lessor who was entitled to the rent and reversion. [Referred to, Williams v. Earle, 1868, L. R. 3 Q. B. 750.] In ejectment to recover messuages and lands at Wolverhampton, in the county of Stafford, the demise of which was laid on the 26th of March 1809, a verdict was taken at the trial at Stafford for the plaintiff; subject to the opinion of the Court upon this case. William Bamford, deceased, being seised in fee of the premises in question, demised them, by an indenture of lease, dated 25th of March 1802, to the defendant Hayley, his executors and administrators, from the day of the date, for 21 years, at a yearly rent, payable half yearly, on the 29th of September and the 25th of March, unto the said William Bamford his heirs or assigns, subject to this proviso for determining the said lease. " Provided, that if either of the said parties shall be desirous to determine this lease at the end of the first 7 or 14 years of the said term, then it shall and may be lawful for either of them, his executors or administrators, so to do, upon giving unto the other of them, his heirs, executors or administrators, or leaving the same at his or their place of abode, 12 months' notice in writing of such his or their intention, any thing therein contained to the contrary notwithstanding." William Bamford being so seised, afterwards by his will, in September 1807, devised the premises to his youngest son Benjamin B. (the lessor of the plaintiff,) in fee, and appointed the 182 ROE V. HAYLEY 12 EAST, 465. said Benjamin B. and T. C. his executors, and died on the 17th of December following ; leaving William Bamford his heir at law. The executors proved the will. On the 3d of March 1808 Benjamin [465] Bamford alone delivered notice in writing signed by himself, to the defendant, as follows. " Mr. J. L. Hayley.-As devisee in fee under the will of my late father William Bamford, deceased, and in pursuance of the proviso in the lease of the buildings, lands, and premises made by him to you, I hereby give .you notice to quit and deliver up to me, at or upon the 25th of March 1809, the possession of all the buildings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John Kean and Jane His Wife, Administratrix of William Craig, v James Strong and Others, Executors of John Maxwell
...Jourdain v. WilsonENR 4 B. & Al. 266. Pitcher v. ToveyENR 1 Salk. 80. Brudnell v. Roberts 2 Wils. 143. Roe, Lessee Bamford, v. HayleyENR 12 East, 464. Alfor v. HenningENR Owen, 152. Simpson v. ClaytonENR 4 Bing. N. C. 751. Ashby v. Baines,ENR 2 C. M. & R. 22. Paul v. Nurse.ENR 8 B. & C. 488......
-
Liddy v Kennedy
...d. Davis v. Elsam Moo. & Mal. 191. Gardner v. Kennard 12 Q. B. 244. Doe d. Wilson v. AbelENR 2 M. & S. 541. Rod d. Bamford v. HaylesENR 12 East, 464. Attoe v. hemmingsENR 2 Bulst. 281. Wright v. BurrowesENR 1 C. B. 685; and 4 Dowl. & L. 438. Hilton v. Earl Granville 5 Q. B. 730. Doe d. Wils......
-
Elizabeth Doughty against Bowman and Fulford
...have been turned out so that a covenant for quiet enjoyment, if this were one, would have been broken.] In Roe clem. Bamfurd v. Hayley (12 East, 464), it was held that a power reserved in a lease to the lessor, his executors or administrators, to give notice of determining the lease at the ......
-
Simpson v Sir W. R Clayton, Bart
...159, Condition; I steed v. Stonely (Anders. 82), Sally v. Wells (3 Wils. 25), Hyde v. Skinner (2 P, Wms. 196), Doe dem. Bamford v. Hayley (12 East, 464), Vyvyan v. Arthur (1 B. & C. 410), Sampson v. Easterly (9 B. & C. 505), Shep. Touchst. 176. There can be no difficulty as to the apportion......