Sarah Webb against Russell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 July 1789 |
| Date | 01 July 1789 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 100 E.R. 639
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Inapplicable, Baker v. Gostling, 1834, 1 Bing. N. C. 28. Referred to, Ecclesiastical Commissioners v. Rowe, 1880, 5 App. Cas. 748. Considered, Rogers v. Hosegood [1900], 2 Ch. 400; Manchester Brewery Company v. Coombs [1901], 2 Ch. 614.
3T.E.MS. WEBB V. RUSSELL 639 [393] sarah webb against russell. Wednesday, July 1st, 1789. If mortgagor and mortgagee make a lease, in which the covenants for the rent and repairs are only with the mortgagor and his assigns, the assignee of the mortgagee (*) cannot maintain an action for the breach of these covenants, because they are collateral to his grantor's interest in the land, and therefore do not run with it. If tenant for a term of years lease for a less term, and assign his reversion, and the assignee take a conveyance of the fee, by which his former reversionary interest is merged, the covenants incident to that reversionary interest are thereby extinguished. [Inapplicable, Baker v. Gostling, 1834, 1 Bing. N. C. 28. Referred to, Ecclesiastical Gom.misswm.ers v. Rowe, 1880, 5 App. Gas. 748. Considered, Rogers v. Hosegood [1900], 2 Ch. 400; Manchester Breivery Company v. Coombs [1901], 2 Ch. 614.] This was an action of covenant. The declaration stated an indenture of 26th October 1780, by which William Stokes, and R. Webb who was described to be the mortgagee of the premises in question, demised them to the defendant for 11 years, from the 29th September then last, at the yearly rent of 2001. payable to Stokes or his assigns; in which were contained covenants on the part of the defendant with Stokes and his assigns (inter alia) to pay the rent, and to keep the premises in repair. It then stated that R. Webb at the time of the lease was possessed of the premises for the residue then to come and unexpired of a term of 99 years, commencing on the 24th of June 1770, subject to an equity of redemption by Stokes on payment of a certain sum with interest to R. Webb. That the defendant entered on 26th October 1780, and became possessed for the term of 11 years, the reversion thereof for the terra of 99 years belonging to R. Webb, subject to such equity of redemption, and the further reversion in fee belonging to one G-. Medley. It then stated that by inden tures of lease and release of the 23d and 24th March 1781, Medley granted the rever sion in fee, expectant on the determination of the term for 99 years, to Stokes and Morgan Thomas; who, by indentures of lease and release, dated 26th and 27th March 1781, and made between Stokes and Thomas of the first part, R. Webb of the second part, and Makepeace Thackeray of the third part, granted it to Thackeray his heirs and assigns in trust for R. Webb his heirs and assigns, subject to a proviso for redemp tion on payment of a certain sum of interest by Stokes to R. Webb on a day therein mentioned and since past. That on the 30th May 1785 R. Webb died, having first made his will; by which he bequeathed to the plaintiff all his worldly estate, and appointed her sole executrix; that she proved the will, took upon herself the burthen of the execution of it, assented to the said bequest, and claimed to have the reversion of the premises for the residue of the term of 99 years, (subject to Stokes's equity of redemption,) and the money thereupon secured to R. Webb, as legatee; and by virtue of that bequest, assent, and claim, she became possessed of the said reversion for the residue of the term of 99 years, subject, &c. That by indentures of lease and release, dated 12th and 13th February 1787, and made between Thackeray of the first part, Stokes of the second part, and the plaintiff of the third part. Thackeray and Stokes granted and released to the plaintiff the reversion of the premises in fee, freed and dis-[394]-charged from all right and equity of redemption whatsoever; by virtue whereof she became and was and still is seized in fee of the reversion of the premises, immediately expectant on the determination of the term of 11 years. The declaration coneluded with setting forth two breaches of covenant; the one for non-payment of one year and one quarter's rent, due at Lady-Day 1788 ; and the other for uot keeping the premises in repair. To this there was a general demurrer; and joinder. Shepherd (a) in support of the demurrer. It appears by the pleadings that the reversion in the term for 99 years, and the reversion in fee, are united in the plaintiff in her own right. For though she was the executrix as well as legatee of her husband, she took the reversion in the term for 99 years in the latter character, it being expressly stated that she assented to the bequest, and by virtue of such bequest became possessed, &c. Then if she took it in her own right, the general rule of law (*) Bui (a) In (*) But the mortgagor himself may. Stokes v. Russell, post, 678. " " " i last Michaelmas term. 640 WEBB V. RUSSELL 3 T. R. S95. attaches on this case, namely, that where a term and a reversion expectant on that term unite in one person by a different creation in the same right, the term is merged in and extinguished by the reversion (b); and then all the covenants, which were created in respect of the term, are merged and destroyed. So that where the assignee of the reversion is not seised or possessed of the same estate, in respect of which the covenant is made, he cannot take advantage of the covenant. There are three relations at common law, which may exist between the lessor and the lessee, and their respective assignees. First, privity of contract, which is created by the contract itself, and subsists for ever between the lessor and lessee. Secondly, privity of estate, which subsists between the lessee, or his assignee in possession of the estate, and the assignee of the reversioner. And thirdly, privity of contract and estate, which both exist where the term and reversion remain in the original covenantors. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson way Properties Ltd v Smith and Others
...deeds were made with the mortgagors only: “.. and therefore in contemplation of law were made with strangers to the land: Webb v Russell 3 T.R. 393; 1 R.R. 725 to which, therefore, the benefit did not become annexed. That a court of equity, however, would not regard such an objection as def......
-
St. Marylebone Property Company Ltd v Fairweather
...so much so that the freeholder could not sue the under-lessee on the covenants or enforce the proviso for re-entry, see Webb v. Russell (1789) 3 T.R. 393. The underlessee could enjoy the property without payment of rent and without performance of the covenants and conditions until the end o......
-
Pennell v Payne
...terms of his underlease. So that the surrender does operate as if it were an assignment of the surrenderer's interest." 18The case of Webb -v- Russell there referred to was in fact one of merger. That, of course, is essentially the converse of surrender: the tenant acquires the freehold rev......
-
St. Marylebone Property Company Ltd v Fairweather
... ... from so much of the learned Judge's order as dismissed their claim against the defendant Fairweather for possession of three-quarters of a shed on ... Sarah Loulton was in adverse possession of the lend. Lord Selborne said; "I am ... ...