Whatman v Gibson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 April 1838 |
| Date | 06 April 1838 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 59 E.R. 333
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 7 L. J. Ch. 160; 2 Jur. 273. See Keates v. Lyon, 1869, L. R. 4 Ch. 223; Russell v. Watts, 1885, 10 App. Cas. 603; Rogers v. Hosegood [1900], 2 Ch. 397.
Covenant. Notice.
[196] whatman v. gibson. April 5, 6, 1838. [S. C. 7 L. J. Ch. 160; 2 Jur. 273. See Keates v. Lyon, 1869, L. E. 4 Ch. 223; Bussellv. Watts, 1885, 10 App. Cas. 603 ; Rogers v. Hosegood [1900], 2 Ch. 397.] Covenant. Notice. A., the owner of a piece of land, divided it into lots for building a row of houses, and a deed was made between him of the one part and X. and Y. (who had purchased some of the lots from him) and the several persons who should at any time execute (1) Ex relatione. 334 WHATMAN V. GIBSON 9 SIM. 197. the deed of the other part; by which, after reciting that A. had determined and proposed and thereby expressly declared that it should be a general and indispensable condition of the sale of all or any of the lots that the proprietors thereof for the time being should observe and abide by the several stipulations and restrictions thereinafter contained; it was mutually covenanted between A., X., and Y., and the several other persons who should at any time execute the deed, and each of them, A., X. and Y., and the several persons, &c., for himself, his heirs, executors and administrators, thereby covenanted with all and every the other and others of them, and with the heirs, executors, administrators or assigns of all and every the other and others of them mutually and reciprocally, that none of the proprietors of any of the lots for the time being should at any time carry on thereon the business of an innkeeper. A. sold and conveyed one of the lots to B., and another to C., both of whom executed the deed of covenant. The Plaintiff afterwards purchased B.'s lot, and the Defendant purchased C.'s lot with notice of the deed of covenant. The Defendant intending to use the house on his lot as a family hotel; an injunction was granted to restrain him from so doing. By an indenture, bearing date the 28th of February 1799, and made between. John Fleming of the one part, and William Petman and George Gibson and the several other persons who should at any time execute the indenture of the other part, after reciting that Fleming was seised in fee-simple in possession of a piece or parcel of land containing two acres and a half, situate in Kamsgate on the south cliff there, part of which he had laid out in separate lots or divisions for the erection of a row of houses thereon, intended to be called Nelson's Crescent, the form of the front building line of which intended row of houses was delineated in a ground plan thereof in the margin of the indenture, and did contain, including the curve in length, 400 feet in front towards the south-east; and, in order to preserve some degree of similarity and uniformity of appearance in such intended row of houses, Fleming had determined and proposed, and thereby expressly declared, thai it [197] should be a general and iiulispensable condUwn of the sale of all or any part of the land intended to form such row, that the several proprietors of such land respectively for the time being should observe and abide by the several stipulations and restrictions thereinafter contained or impressed in regard to the several houses to be erected thereon, and in all other particulars, and that Fleming and his heirs should and would, at all times, observe the like stipulations and restrictions as to such of the lots or divisions of the same land as, for the time being, should remain unsold by him or them; and, after further reciting that William Petman and George Gibson had severally agreed to purchase of Fleming certain lots in the intended row, subject to the proposed stipulations and restrictions : it was witnessed that, in consideration of the premises and in pursuance of and in conformity to the conditions thereinbefore expressed of and for the sale of the several lots of land in the row, and for effectuating, establishing and rendering perpetual the plan, design and purposes aforesaid, it was thereby mutually covenanted, concluded and agreed upon, by and between the said J. Fleming, W. Petman, George Gibson and the several other persons who should, at any time or times, execute the same indenture (the respective times of the execution of the indenture by the several parties being expressed in the several attestations thereof), and each and every of them, the said J. Fleming, W. Petman, George Gibson and the several other person or persons who should at any time or times execute the indenture for himself ami herself, for his or her heirs, executors and administrators, and for every of them, did thereby covenant, promise and agree to and with all and every the other and others of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tulk v Moxhay
...the rents, &c., of it. Will, then, a Court of Equity disregard such objections'? Collins v. Plummer (1 P. Wms. 104), PHiatman y. Gibson (9 Sim. 196), Schreiber v. Creed (10 Sim. 9), Mann v. Stephens (15 Sim. 377). Sir Edward Sugden, in his llth edition of "Vendors and Purchasers" (page 738)......
-
Spunner v Walsh
...325. Hayes v. BickerstaffENR Vaugh. 118. Smith v. Pocklington 1 Cr. & Jer. 445. Vickery v. JacksonENR 2 Stark. 293. Whatman v. GibsonENR 9 Sim. 196. Whitton v. Peacock 2 Scott, 630. WEbb v. RussellENR 3 T. R. 393. Patteson v. LongENR 6 Beav. 590. Doe d. Ambler v. Woodbridge 9 B. & Cr. 476. ......
-
Pope v Garland
...I cannot for a moment entertain the evasion that (a) See, as to the general rule, Cosser v. Colhnge, 3 Myl. & K. 283 , Whatman v. Gibson^ 9 Sim. 196 ; and as to what amounts to misrepresentation, Waring v. Hoggart, Ry. & Moo. 39. In Flight v. Barton, referred to in the preceding page, silen......
-
Bristow v Wood
...the British Museum (2 M. & K. 552), Keppell v. Bailey (Id. 517), Peel v. Wilks (in Ch., cor. V.-C. K. B., not reported), Whatman v. Gibson (9 Sim. 196), Schreiber v. Greed (10 Sim. 9). Mr. Wigram and Mr. Smythe, contra. The covenant was introduced into the deed for the amelioration of the p......