Rubery against Jervoise and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 May 1786 |
| Date | 23 May 1786 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 99 E.R. 1067
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Not applied, Maxwell v. Ward, 1824, 13 Price, 679. Referred to, Hussey v. Domville [1900], 1 Ir. R. 438; Hussey v. Domville (No. 2) [1903], 1 Ir. R. 280.
IT. H. 230. RUBEBY V. JERVOISE 1067 eubery against jervoise and another. Tuesday, May 23d, 1786. A. and B. covenant in a lease for 61 years, "That at any time within one year after the expiration of 20 years of the said term of 61 years, upon the request of the lessee, and his paying 61. to the lessors, they would execute another lease of the said premises unto the lessee, for and during the further term of 20 years to commence from and after the expiration of the said term of 61 years, &c. And so in like manner at the end and expiration of every 20 years during the said term of 61 years, for the like consideration, and upon the like request, would execute another lease for the further term of 20 years, to commence at and from the expiration of the term then last before granted, &c." Under this covenant the lessee cannot claim a further term of 20 years, at the expiration of the last term of 20 years in the lease, if he has omitted to claim a further term at the end of the first and second 20 years in the lease. [Not applied, Maxwell v. Ward, 1824, 13 Price, 679. Referred to, Hussey v. Domville [1900], 1 Ir. R. 438; Hussey v. Dmnvilk (No. 2) [1903], 1 Ir. R. 280.] This was an action of covenant. The declaration stated, that on the 3d March, 1725, by a certain indenture tripartite, made between Walter Baynes and [230] Robert Warner of the first part,'William Wilton of the second part, and Richard Grimes and John Pankeman of the third part; after reciting as therein is recited, they the said Walter Baynes, and Robert Warner, by and with the direction and appointment of Richard Grimes and J. Pankeman, did, and each of them did, demise, lease, and to farm let, unto the said William Wilton, hi* executors, administrators, and assigns, all that piece or parcel of ground, &c. [particularly describing it] from the Feast of St. John the Baptist, then last past, for sixty-one years; yielding and paying therefore unto the said Walter Baynes and Robert Warner, their heirs and assigns, for the first two years of the said term, the rent of one pepper-corn ; and yielding and paying therefore yearly and every year, during the remainder of the said term of 61 years, unto the said Walter Baynes and Robert Warner, their heirs and assigns, (as tenants in common,) the yearly rent or sum of 21. 7s. 6d. at the two most usual feasts, &c. without any deduction, &c. the first half-yearly payment thereof to begin at Christmas 1727. And the said Walter Baynes and Robert Warner for themselves respectively, and for their respective heirs and assigns, (as tenants in common,) did, and each of them did, covenant, promise, grant, and agree, to and with the said William Wilton, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hussey v Domvile
...of Leominster (4) ; Rubery v. Jervoise (5). (1) 2 Sch. & Lef. 682. (4) 1 Ves. 476; 3 Bro. C. C. 529. (2) 1 Ridg. P. C. 187. (5) 1 T. R. 229. (3) 11 L. R. Ir. 87. To. CHANCERY DIVISION. 433 Serjeant Campion, Q. C., and Matheson, Q.C. (with them G.W. Appeal. Walker), for the respondents :— ......
-
John Kean and Jane His Wife, Administratrix of William Craig, v James Strong and Others, Executors of John Maxwell
...7 Pri. 555. Colt v. Howe Cro. Eliz. 348. Elstob v. ThorowgoodENR 1 Ld. Raym. 284. Smith v. SharpeENR 1 Salk. 139. Rubery v. JervoisENR 1 T. R. 229. Norris v. Elsworth Freem. 462. Cowell v. WattsENR 6 East, 405. Henshall v. RobertsENR 5 East, 150. Gye v. Ellis Stra. 228. Cocks v. Nash 2 M. &......
-
M'Dermott v C. B. Caldwell and W. S. Cookson
...Purser v. DarleyENR 4 K. & J. 41, 44. Wortham v. Lord DacreENR 2 K. & J. 437, 439. White v. Beck Ir. R. 6 Eq. 63. Rubery v. JervoiseENR 1 T. R. 229. City of London v. Mitford 14 Ves. 41. Finch v. Underwood 2 Ch. Div. 310. 315. Wortham v. Lord DacreENR 2 K. & J. 437. White v. Beck Ir. R. 6 E......
-
Hussey v Domvile (No. 2)
...D. (1) Before Lord Ashbourne, C., and Fitz Gibbon, Walker, and Holmes, L.JJ. (1) 1 M'Clell. 458. (1) M'Clell. 464. (1) M'Clell. 464. (2) 1 T. R. 229. (3) [1900] 1 I. R. (1) [1900] 1 I. R. 417. ...