Webb against Plummer
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 June 1819 |
| Date | 19 June 1819 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 537
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
webb against plummee. Saturday, June 19th, 1819. By the custom of the country, the out-going tenant was entitled to an allowance for foldage from the in-coming tenant. Where a lease, however, specified certain payments to be made by the incoming to the out-going tenant, at the time of quitting the premises, among which there was not included any payment for foldage: Held that the terms of the lease excluded the custom, and that the out-going tenant was not entitled to any allowance in respect of foldage. Where the lease also provided that the tenant should, during the term, fold his flock of sheep which he should keep on the demised premises, under a penalty if he omitted to do 538 WEBB 1?. PLUMMER 2" B. & ALD. 747. so. Held, arguendo, that this amounted to a covenant to keep a flock of sheep upon the premises. [Considered and applied, Spartali v. Beneclce, 1850, 10 C. B. 224.] Assumpsit. The declaration stated, that the plaintiff being possessed of a farm, was in respect of it entitled to foldage; and that in consideration that the plaintiff would relinquish and give up the possession of the farm, and would permit him to have the benefit of the said foldage, the defendant undertook to make all due and customary allowances, as between in-coming and out-going tenants, for and in respect of the said foldage. At the trial at the last Sussex Assizes before Park J., the only question was as to the foldage, in respect of which a certain sum was claimed by the plaintiff, who was the out-going tenant of a Southdown farm, [747] from the defendant, the in-coming tenant. It was admitted, that by the custom of the country such an allowance was usually made; but the defendant contended, that under the special provisions of the plaintiff's lease, the custom of the country was excluded. The following were the clauses relied on : " And also that the said Henry Webb shall not, during the term, carry, or cause or suffer to be carried from off the premises, any hay, straw, corn in the straw, haulm, sheaf, or fodder, muck, dung, compost, or sullage, that shall grow, arise, or be made in or upon the said demised premises; but yearly and every year, in a good husband-like manner, fodder out, lay, spread, spend, and use the same, in or upon some proper part thereof, upon pain of forfeiting three pounds for each load so carried away from the said demised premises; and also shall...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v Tyndall
...Great WakeringENR 5 B. & Ad. 971. Eccleston v. Clipsham See also 3 Rol. Abr. 64. Tippins v. CoatesENR 18 Beav. 401. Webb v. PlummerENR 2 B. & Ald. 746. The Earl of Shrewsbury v.Gould Ibid. 487, 494. Kendall v. HamiltonELR 4 App. Cas. 504, 545. Keightley v. WatsonENR 3 Exch. 716. Bradburne v......
-
ARUMUGAM VALIAMMA v. KANAGARATNAM
...that is necessary to put the party charged with default in a position to fulfil the condition (vide 10 Hal. 479 ; also Welb v. Plummer1[1 2 B. & A. 746.] Shrewsbury v. Gould 2[ 2 B. & A. 487.]). To put the argument in another way, plaintiffs having originally prevented registration are now ......
-
Holding v Pigott
...And in that case one clause in the agreement was, "That all manure, compost, &c. was to be used upon [471] the farm." In Webb v. Plummer (2 B. & A. 746) the agreement contained express stipulations as to the mode of quitting the farm. The decision turned on those stipulations, and therefore......