The Gas Light and Coke Company v Turner
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 February 1840 |
| Date | 12 February 1840 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 133 E.R. 127
IN THE COMMON PLEAS.
S. C. 8 Scott, 609; 9 L. J. Ex. 336. Distinguished Feret v. Hill, 1854, 15 C. B. 224.
[324] hilary vacation. in the exchequer chamber. the gas light and coke company v. turner. Error from the Court of Common Pleas. February 12, 1840. [S. C. 8 Scott, 609; 9 L. J. Ex. 336. Distinguished, Feret v. Hill, 1854, 15 C. B. 224.] Held, a good plea in covenant on a lease, that the lease was entered into by Plaintiff and Defendant, and that the premises were let to Defendant for the express purpose of being used by Defendant in drawing oil of tar and boiling oil of tar, contrary to the provisions of the statute 25 G. 3, c. 77. The declaration stated, that on the 13th of August 1833, by a certain indenture sealed with the common seal of the Plaintiffs, and then made between the Plaintiffs of the one part, and the Defendant and one William Shackell and one Benjamin Hopkinson of the other part, the Plaintiffs demised to the Defendant and W. Shackell and B. Hopkinson, their executors, administrators, and assigns, certain tenements and premises, with the appurtenances, particularly described in the indenture, for the term of twenty-one years, at the yearly rent of 3001. Covenant by the Defendant to pay the same ; and breach by nonpayment. There was a second count upon an agreement under 128 THE GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY V. TURNER 6 BING. (N. C.) 325. seal, bearing date the same day and year as the lease, and made between the same parties, by which agreement, after reciting the lease, the Defendant covenanted that he would purchase of the Plaintiffs at least 100,000 gallons of tar yearly, to be deliverable and paid for at the places, and in the manner and in proportions specified in the agreement. Breach, refusal to purchase according to the agreement. The Defendant, in his plea to the first count, after referring to the statute 25 Gr. 3, c. 77, which makes it unlawful to boil turpentine or draw oil of tar, above the quantity of ten gallons at a time, in any workhouse or [325] place nearer to any other building than seventy-five feet, and averring that the premises demised were within the prohibited distance, pleaded-that the said indenture was made and entered into by and between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, and W. Shacknell and B. Hopkinson, in manner and form as in the first count mentioned; and the tenements and premises, with the appurtenances, in that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- The Gas Light and Coke Company v Turner
-
Barber v Fox
...Bryce. [2 Bing. N. C. 634, Shackell v. Rosier. 3 Scott, 59, S. C. 5 fling. N. C. 666, Gas Light Company v. Turner. 1 Scott, 779, S. C. 6 Bing. N. C. 324. 8 Scott, 609, S. C. in Cam. Scacc. 3 M. & W. 434, M'KinneU v. Robinson. See also the cases collected ante, Vol. I. p. 309, note (i).] Nor......
-
Dominus R v Kilderby
...C. [But see 1 M. & S. 593, Langtmt, v. Hughes. See further 2 Or. M. & R. 311, Pellecat v. Angell. 2 Cr. & M. 274, Armstfmig v. Lewis. 6 Bing. N. C. 324, Gas Light Company v. Turner. 8 Scott, 609, S. C. 9 M. & W. 636, Af'Callan v. Mortimer. 3 Clark & F. 610, 632, Swan v. Blair.] 428 DOMINUS ......
- Singma Sawmill Company Sdn Bhd v Asian Holdings (Industrialised Buildings) Sdn Bhd
-
REFORMING ILLEGALITY IN PRIVATE LAW
...Ed, 1996) at pp 385—386; see, eg, J M Allan (Merchandising) Ltd v Cloke[1963] 2 QB 340; The Gas Light and Coke Company v Samuel Turner(1840) 133 ER 127. 35 See, eg, Archbolds (Freightage) Ltd v S Spanglett Ltd[1961] 1 QB 374 at 387, per Pearce LJ; see also M P Furmston, “The Analysis of Ill......