Walter v Maunde

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date08 February 1820
Date08 February 1820
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 37 E.R. 344



walter v. maunde. Rolls. Feb. 8, 1820. On a sale, in lots, of premises, the particulars of which state them to be held under one lease reserving rent, and that the purchaser of one lot is to be exclusively subject to the rent, the other purchasers cannot object to the title, on the ground of a clause of re entry on nonpayment, contained in the lease. A person contracting to purchase leasehold property, is held to contract with notice of the clauses of the lease. Landlord contracting to sell part of the demised estate, with an apportionment of a specific amount, part of the rent reserved for the whole estate, can make a good title to it without the consent of the tenant. Under the decree in this came, certain leasehold premises, consisting chiefly of houses in the neighbourhood of Spitalfields, were sold by auction in several lots. J. Aspinall, the purchaser of lots 28 and 33, excepted to the Master's report in favour of the title. The first exception was on the following grounds : In the particulars and conditions of sale, the premises were described as being held under a lease, from the Earl of Halifax for a term of years, subject to a ground-rent of 60, and to several under leases; and it was mentioned, that the purchaser of lot 9 was to be exclusively subject to the payment of the ground-rent of 60. It appeared by the abstract, that the original lease contained a clause of re-entry on the whole premises, in default of payment of the rent. Mr. Hart and Mr. Teed for the exception. Under the clause of re-entry, the purchaser will be liable to the forfeiture of his estate, upon the default of [182] a third person. Of this liability there was nothing to apprise him ; for though a person purchasing a leasehold estate must expect to take it subject to those inconveniences, that are necessarily incident to the tenure, such as a power of distress ; yet, merely being informed that there ia a lease reserving rent, cannot be considered to render him conusant, of its containing other and less usual remedies for enforcing payment. Mr. Sugden, on the other side, contended that the purchaser, having notice of the lease, bought, subject to it covenants. Hall v. Smith (14 Ves. 426). A clause of re-entry is by no means unusual, but what every one would naturally be led to suppose the lease contained. The Master of the Rolls [Sir Thomas Plumer]. I think there is nothing at all in this objection. It was properly admitted, that though the purchaser is liable to be called on for the rent, and even to be distrained on for it, and may thus be put to very great inconvenience, yet that would not form a ground for rejecting the title. If that were urged as an objection, the answer would be, that when several parts of an estate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Hayford v Criddle
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 29 June 1855
    ...The purchaser had notice of the lease of 1845, which is recited, and notice of a lease ia notice of its contents ; Walter v. Mawnde (1 Jac. & W. 181) ; Hall v. Smith (14 Ves. 426) ; and he is bound by waiver and acquiescence after he had notice. They also cited Bmnell v. Brown (1 Jac. & W. ......
  • Stewart v The Marquis of Conyngham
    • Ireland
    • Rolls Court (Ireland)
    • 16 April 1851
    ...of Congleton v. PattisonENR 10 East, 130. Bristow v. Wood 1 Col. 480. Vaughan v. MagillUNK 12 Ir. Eq. Rep. 200, 207. Walter v. MaundeENR 1 Jac. & W. 181. Paterson v. LongENR 6 Beav. 590. The Duke of Bedford v. The British Museum 2 M. & K. 552. Chilliner v. Chilliner 2 Ves. 528. Campbell v. ......
  • Spunner v Walsh
    • Ireland
    • Rolls Court (Ireland)
    • 24 May 1847
    ...1 Bing. N. C. 370. Taylor v. Stibbert 2 VEs. 440. Hall v. Smith 14 VEs. 426. Daniels v. Davidson 16 VEs. 249. Walter v. MaundeENR 1 Jac. & W. 181. Pope v. Garland 4 Y. & Col. 394. Flight v. Barton 3 M. & K. 282. Cosser v. Collinge 3 M. & K. 283 Barrand v. ArcherENR 2 Sim. 433. Eyre v. Dolph......
  • Vignolles v Bowen
    • Ireland
    • Rolls Court (Ireland)
    • 19 November 1847
    ...Barton 3 M. & K. 282. Pope v. Garland 4 Y. & Col. 394. Cosser v. collinge 3 M. & K. 283. Van v. Corpe 3 M. & K. 269. Walter v. MaundeENR 1 Jac. & W. 181. Barton v. Lord Downes Fl. & K. 505. Commons v. Marshall 6 Br. C. C. 168. Long v. Rankin 2 Sug. on Powers, App. 513. Taylor v. Stibbert 2 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT