Smyth v Carter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 November 1853 |
| Date | 25 November 1853 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 31
ROLLS COURT.
Questioned, Doherty v. Allman, 1878, 3 App. Cas. 727.
[78] smyth v. carter. Nov. 25, 1853. [Questioned, Doherty v. Allman, 1878, 3 App. Gas. 727.] The Court will restrain a tenant from pulling down a house and building another which the landlord objects to. In 1852 the Defendant became owner of a public-house and premises which had formerly been built on part of the waste of Bedminster, of which the Plaintiffs were the lords of the manor. Bent had been paid by the previous owners to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was pulling down the house, in order to erect a brewery in its place, which, as it would overlook the Plaintiffs' residence, would form an intolerable nuisance. In July last, the Plaintiffs obtained an injunction to restrain the Defendant from so doing, and the Defendant now moved to dissolve it. [79] Mr. Roupell and Mr. C. M. Roupell, in support of the motion, contended, first, that there was no evidence of the Defendant's intention to erect a brewery; and that, from the ruinous state of the premises, the Defendant's alterations and outlay would, at the utmost, be "meliorating waste," which, far from injuring the Plaintiffs, would be for their benefit; and, lastly, that the Defendant had a right to improve his property, he not being an ordinary tenant, but owner in fee-simple, subject to a quit rent payable to the lords of the manor. Mr. R. Palmer and Mr. Osborne, for the Plaintiffs, were not heard. the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. Assuming the Plaintiffs to be landlords, and the Defendant tenant, I entertain no doubt that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maunsell v Hort
...Allman Ir. Rep. 10 Eq. 362, 460. Kemp v. SoberENR 1 Sim. N. S. 517. Macher v. The Foundling Hospital 1 Ves. & B. 188. Smyth v. CarterENR 18 Beav. 78. Dumpor's CaseUNK 1 Sm. L. C. 30. Brummell v. Mackperson 14 Ves. 173. Gibson v. DoegENR 2 H. & N. 615. Peek v. MathewsELR L. R. 3 Eq. 515. Rop......
-
Dunn v Bryan
...C. Court. DUNN and BRYAN. Legh v. HewittENR 4 East, 154. Packington's caseENR 3 Atk. 215. Smith v. CarterENR 18 Beav. 78. French v. Macale 2 Dr. & War. 269. Dickson v. Fitzgerald Rolls, 3rd June, 1834. Flint v. Brandon 8 Ves. 159. City of London v. NashENR 3 Atk. 515. Aubrey v. FisherENR 10......
-
Doherty v Allman
...Allsonan. Vol.. I. V. C. Court. DOHERTY and ALLMAN. Cole v. GreeneENR 1 Lev. 309. Greene v. ColeENR 2 Wms. Saund. 252. Smyth v. CarterENR 18 Beav. 78. Elliott v. Watkins 1 Jones, 308. Mayor of London v. Hedger 18 Ves. 355. Maddock v. MalletUNK 12 Ir. C. L. R. 173. Lord Courtown v. Ward 1 Sc......
-
Makhan et Al v Addie et Al
...to build. The price at which the tapia house purchased by the defendants from Elena McCollin in 1974 was $400. 38 In Smyth v. Carter 52 E.R. 31 Sir John Romilly M.R. stated the law thus: “I entertain no doubt that this Court will restrain a tenant from pulling down a house and building any ......