Twynam against Pickard the Younger
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 November 1818 |
| Date | 06 November 1818 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 305
King's Bench Division
Referred to, Hyde v. Warden, 1877, 3 Ex. D. 83; Swansea Corporation v. Thomas, 1882, 10 Q. B. D. 51.
scribed a sum of money with a view of improving the chapel, and that it was agreed that they should hold the same for the purpose of carrying on a certain species of religious worship for the period mentioned. This, took place before the declaration of trust was indorsed on the back of the lease. In furtherance of the object of that instrument, the indorsement was prepared, which was intended to be executed by all the lessees, and which states that the lease was granted in order that the premises might be used by the whole of the congregation as a place for the celebration of divine worship. We have therefore one piece of evidence which cannot deceive us as to the use which was the object of this lease, and it is clearly either a superstitious use within the stat. 23 H. 8, c. 10, or a charitable use within the 9 G. 2, c. 36; and if it falls within the provisions of either of these statutes, the lease is void. And it does not come within the exception in 9 G. 2, c. 36, for no money was actually paid to the lessor as a consideration for granting the lease. Upon the whole, therefore, am of opinion that this lease is void, and that the lessor of the plaintiff is entitled to recover. Holroyd J. I am also of opinion that this lease is void. It is a general principle of law, with respect to deeds, that where a statute makes them void as for charitable or superstitious uses, or where they are void by the .common law as contra bonos 'mores, that the proof of their invalidity may be collected, not only from the instrument itself, but from circumstances which, though they do not appear upon the face of the deed, may be taken into consideration. Then what are the facts of this case I It is stated that 4001. bad been subscribed [104] by the congregation, for the, purpose of enlarging and improving the chapel for public worship. I take that to mean an enlargement and improvement for their more conveniently witnessing the performance of public worship there. Then it is further stated as a consideration for the grant of the lease, that this money was to be expended for the purposes aforesaid ; that is, for the enlarging and improving the chapel for public worship. If so, the 4001. was not a valuable consideration paid to the landlord for granting the use of his premises but was money laid out for the purpose of enlarging the building for public worship, which was for the convenience of the congregation themselves, without any reference whatever 'to the interest of the landlord. Then if the lease were made by him for that purpose, it is clearly a charitable use within the 9 G. 2, c. 36, s. 1. As we are not bound, however,. to confine ourselves to the instrument itself, and may even look to independent circumstances to learn the object of the lessor, we may have recourse to the declaration of trust, and that contains the acknowledgment of four out of the several lessees, that the lease was granted for a purpose which in point of law is a charitable use. Upon these grounds, I am of opinion that the lease is void. Judgment for the plaintiff. [105] TWYNAM against PICKARD Tile YOUNGER (a). Friday, Nov. 6th, 1818. Covenant will lie by the assignee of the reversion of part of the demised premises, against the lessee for not repairing. [Referred to, Hyde v. Warden, 1877, 3 Ex. D. 83Swansea Corporation v. Thomas,, 1882, 10 Q. B. 51'.] Covenant. Declaration stated, that one II. N. Middleton being seised in fee of the premises, demised the same by lease to the defendant for fourteen years, and that the defendant covenanted to repair, &c. The declaration then stated the entry of the defendant upon the premises, the reversion still remaining in Middleton ; that the latter by lease or release conveyed his reversion to W. H. and W. I. in fee ; that they became seised of the reversion in fee, and that they on the 15th day of February, 1810, by lease-and release, conveyed to the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thursby and Others v Plant
...So may the assignee of part of the reversion in all the land ; Co. Litt. 215 a. ; and the assignee of the reversion of part of the land. 2 B, & A. 105, Twynam v. Pic/card. [4 Bing. N. C. 758, 780, 781, Simpson v. Clayton. 6 Scott. 469, S. C.] Where tenant for life makes a lease under a powe......
-
Duppa, Executor of Baskervile, v Mayo
...occasioned by the act of the lessee, or in consequence of his act. 7 Bing. 154, Davis v. Eyton. 4 Moo. & P. 820, S. C.] (e) See 2 B. & A. 105, Twynam v. Pickard, that an assignee of the reversion in part of the land may maintain covenant by virtue of the statute 32 H. 8, although he cannot ......
-
Grattan v Wall
...of Lucan v. GildeaEarl of Lucan v. Gildea Merceron v. DowsonMerceron v. Dowson Heap v. LivingstonHeap v. Livingston Twynam v. PickardENR2 B. & Ald. 105, 108. Murray v. HullENR7 C. B. 455. Halford v. HatchENR1 Dougl. 183, 445. Merceron v. DowsonENR5 B. & C. 479. Curtis v. Spitty1 Bing. N. S.......
-
Aldbrough Henniker v Turner
...of a year of the term the said sum was claimed to be due. Chitty in support of the demurrer. Since the case of Twyman v. PicJcard (2 B. & A. 105), it must be admitted that covenant will lie by the assignee of the reversion of part of the demised premises. In Midgley and Another v. Lovelace ......