The Mayor, Company of Congleton against Pattison and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 July 1808 |
| Date | 01 July 1808 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 103 E.R. 725
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Referred to, Fleetwood v. Hull, 1889, 23 Q. B. D. 37; Horsey Estate Limited v. Steiger [1899], 2 A. B. 89; Rogers v. Hosegood [1900], 2 Ch. 395.
the mayor, &o. of congleton against pattison and another. Friday, July 1st, 1808. In a lease of ground, with liberty to make a water-course and erect a mill, the lessee covenanted for himself, his executors, &c. and assigns, not to hire persons to work in the mill who were settled in other parishes, without a parish certificate: Held that this covenant did not run with the land, or bind the assignee of the lessee. [Referred to, Fleet-wood v. Hull, 1889, 23 Q. B. D. 37 ; Evrsey Estate Limited v. Steiger [1899], 2 Q. B. 89 ; Bogersv. Hosegood [1900], 2 Ch. 395.] The plaintiffs declared in covenant upon an indenture, made the 23d November 1752, whereby they demised to John Clayton a piebe of ground in Congleton, called the Byflatt, and a certain slip of land, through which a water-course was intended to be made, with liberty for making and repairing the same, and with liberty for Clayton, his executors, administrators, or assigns, to erect in the Byflatt a silk-mill, &c. habendum the said piece of ground and premises &c. to Clayton, his executors, administrators, and assigns, for 300 years from the date of the indenture; yielding and paying as therein mentioned. And Clayton covenanted for himself, his executors, administrators, and assigns, with the corporation, that he, his executors, &c. would at all times during the term, before any persons should be received as servants, workmen, or apprentices, in such silk-mill, give notice of their names to the town-clerk of the borough, for the time [131] being; and if he should immediately give satisfactory information to Clayton, his executors, &c. or to the then owner or occupier of the silk-mill, that any of the persons in such notice were legally settled in any other parish or township, and not in Congleton, then they should not be received to work in the business of such silk-mill, before a certificate of the settlement of such person under the stat. 8 & 9 W. 3, c. 30, should be given to Congleton. The declaration then stated the entry of J. Clayton, and the building of the silk-mill; and that on the 1st of January 1790 all the estate and interest, &c. of J. Clayton in the premises duly came to and vested in the defendants by assignment, by virtue of which they entered and were possessed, &c.: and then assigned as a breach, that after the defendants became so possessed, and while they were working the silk-mill, and during the continuance of the term, they received divers persons as servants, workmen, and apprentices to work in the said mill, without giving the previous notice before mentioned to the town-clerk of Congleton, and that the persons so received worked in the said mill without any such notice, and that they had not previously gained any settlement in Congleton : by reason of which the township of Congleton had become liable to relieve them and their families, and had expended a large sum in the same, and continued liable to the burden, &c.: and that the plaintiffs had also incurred great expence in the premises, and their estates and property in the township had been lessened in value. The defendants, after craving oyer of the indenture, by which it appeared further, that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kumar v Dunning
...concern the land are enforceable. 25 The test whether a covenant touches and concerns land is that formulated by Bayley J. in Congleton Corporation v. Pattison (1808) 10 East 130 and adopted by Farwell J. in Rogers v. Hosegood (1900) 2 Ch. 388 at p.395: "the covenant must either affect the ......
-
Swift (P. & A.) Investments v Combined English Stores Group Plc
...falls to be determined by the same test as that applicable to the tenant's covenant. That test was formulated by Bayley J. in Congleton Corporation v. Pattison (1808) 10 East 130 and adopted by Farwell J. in Rogers v. Hosegood [1900] 2 Ch. 388 at 395: "the covenant must either affect land ......
- Re Distributors and Warehousing Ltd
-
RSP Architects Planners & Engineers v Ocean Front Pte Ltd and another appeal
...as per se, and not merely from a collateral circumstances, affects the value of the land`: per Bayley J in Congleton Corp v Pattison (1808) 10 East 130, 135. It must also be shown that it is the intention of the parties that the benefit should run with the land. In Rogers v Hosegood [1900] ......