The Mayor and Burgesses of Stafford v Till
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 February 1827 |
| Date | 07 February 1827 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 697
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 12 Moore, 260; 5 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 77. Approved, London and Birmingham Railway v. Winter, 1840, Cr. & Ph. 63. Discussed, Fishmonger's Company v. Robertson, 1843, 3 Man. & G. 194. Followed, Ecclesiastical Commissioners v. Merral, 1869, L. R. 8 Ex. 167. Discussed, Mayor of Kidderminster v. Hardwick, 1873, L. R. 9 Ex. 23.
the mayor and burgesses of stafford v. till. Feb. 7, 1827. [S. C. 12 Moore, 260; 5 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 77. Approved, London and Birmingham Railway v. Winter, 1840, Cr. & Ph. 63. Discussed, Fishmongers' Company v. Robertson, 1843, 3 Man. & G. 194. Followed, Ecclesiastical Commissioners v. Merral, 1869, L. R. 4 Ex. 167. Discussed, Mayor of Kidderminster v. Hardwick, 1873, It. E. 9 Ex. 23.] A corporation aggregate may sue in assumpsit for use and occupation where the tenant has held premises under them, and paid rent. The Plaintiffs sued the Defendant in assumpsit for the use and occupation of a tenement held under them, and for which the Defendant had previously paid rent to the corporation. At the trial before Burrough J., last Stafford Summer assizes, a verdict was found for the Plaintiffs, with leave [76] for the Defendant to move to enter a nonsuit instead: accordingly, Peake Serjt. last term moved for a rule nisi, on the ground that a corporation could not demise except by deed ; and, consequently, could not sue in assumpsit. D'Oyly Serjt. shewed cause. Though assurapsit does not lie against a corporation, it lies for it. It is true, a corporation cannot be bound except by deed, but it may sue in debt for the use of lands which have been holden without deed: Dean and Chapter of Rochester v. Pearce (1 Campb. 466): and the principle laid down in that case includes an action ofjaasumpsit as well as debt. In the East India Company v. Glover (Str. 612), asaumpsit was brought by a corporation upon a sale of coffee. In the Barber Surgeons of London v. Pelson (2 Lav. 252), a corporation sued in aaaumpsit, and no objection was taken to the form of action. The statute 11 G-. 2, c. 19, s. 14, gives the landlord an action on the case where the demise is not by deed; and the doubt originally was, whether debt would lie on that statute: Stroud v. Rogers (in a note tff Wilkins v. Wingate, 6 T. ft. 62). [Gaselee J. referred to Mayor of London v. Cforee (1 Ventr. 298), Mayor of London v. Hunt (3 Lev. 37).] Peake...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mellor v Spateman
...municipal as well as trading corporations may maintain actions on parol contracts, e.g. for the use and occupation of their land, as in 4 Bing. 75, Mayor of Stafford v. Till. 12 Moore, 260, S. C. 2 C. & P. 371, Southwark Bridge Company v. Sills. 6 C. & P. 608, Mayor of Carmarthen v. Lewis. ......
-
Church against The Imperial Gas Light and Coke Company
...for use and occupation, in debt, Dean and Chapter of Rochester v. Pierce (1 Campb. 466), and in assumpsit, The Mayor of Stafford v. Till (4 Bing. 75), The Mayor and Burgesses of Carmarthen v. Lewis (6 C. & P. 608). There could be no deed where the contract was implied by law from an act of ......
-
Beverley against The Lincoln Gas Light and Coke Company
...that debt would lie for use and occupation by a corporation aggregate, without any demise under seal. In The Mayor of Stafford v. Till (4 Bing. 75), it was decided that a corporation aggregate, may maintain assumpsit for use and occupation when their land has been occupied. So in The Mayor ......
-
Doe, on the several demises of William Pennington and Others, against Taniere
...both instances that, if a demise were relied upon, a deed would have been necessary. [Wigbtraan J. mentioned The Mayor of Stafford v. Till (4 Bing. 75).] The only case in which a supposition appears that there might be a corporation lease not under the common seal is Wood v To.it, (2 N. R. ......