Sibthorp v Brunel
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 April 1849 |
| Date | 24 April 1849 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 154 E.R. 1079
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
[826] scbthohp v. BfiUNEL. April 24, 1849.-A deed executed by the plaintiff and defendant, after reciting that a Company had been formed for the purpose of constructing a railway which would pass through the plaintiff's estate, and that an application to Parliament for an Act of incorporation was then pending, contained a covenant by the defendant, that within six months from the time of the passing the proposed bill, and before the Company should enter upon, take, or ; use the estate, except for the purpose of setting out and ascertaining the land required, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff the sum of 400 J1. for the purchase of the estate as thereinafter described. There was also a covenant, that, on payment by the defendant of the said sum of 40001. and interest, after the expiration of six months after the passing of the said bill to the day of payment of the said sum, the plaintiff should convey to the defendant so much of ; the estate as should be required for the construction of the railway : -Held, in an action on the covenant, for the non-payment of the purchase-money after six months from the passing of the bill, that the covenant to pay the purchase-money, and that to convey the property, were independent covenants. : Covenant on an indenture of the 22nd of April, 1847, executed by the plaintiff' and defendant respectively (profert). The deed, after reciting that a. Company had been forced for the purpose of constructing a railway from Cheltenham to Oxford, and thatlthe Company was then applying to Parliament for an Act of incorporation, and that the plaintiff was then the owner of an estate in the county of Oxford, which would be intersected by the said railway, and injuriously affected thereby, and that the plaintiff had petitioned Parliamentagainstthe said bill, &c.,and that lie had been requested by the defendant to desist from such opposition ; it was thereby covenanted by the defendant, "that within six months from the passing of the proposed bill into a law, and before the said Company shall enter upon, take, or use any part of the said estate, &c., except for the purpose of setting out and ascertaining the land required to be taken, the said I. K. B. (the defendant) shall and will pay to the said 0. D. S. (the plaintiff) the sura of 40001. sterling for the purchase of such part of the said estate as hereinafter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cullen v O'Meara and Another
...B. 273, n. Campbell v. Jones 6 Term R. 570. Mattock v. Kinglake 10 A. & E. 50, 55. Howden v. Simpson 10 A. & E. 793. Sibthorp v. BrunelENR 3 Ex. 826. Dicker v. JacksonENR 6 C. B. 103. Laird v. PimENR 7 M. & W. 474. Mattock v. Kinglake 10 A. & E. 50. Laird v. PimENR 7 M. & W. 474. Laird v. P......