Wilbraham v Livesey
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 February 1854 |
| Date | 14 February 1854 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 81
ROLLS COURT.
S. C. 2 W. R. 281.
[206] wilbraham v. LiVESEY. Feb. 10, 14, 1854. [S. C. 2 W. R. 281.] The purchaser of property has notice of the interests of a tenant in possession, and the purchaser of leaseholds has notice of what it is he purports to buy, and that he must be bound by all the covenants in the lease; but one who contracts for a lease from a party, with knowledge that he holds under a leasehold title, has notice of ordinary but not of unusual covenants in the original lease. Covenants in restraint of trade in a trading locality are not considered usual covenants. The Defendant agreed with the Plaintiff to take a house in the Strand, to be used for the business of printing. Nothing was said as to covenants. The Plaintiff was a lessee under a lease containing covenants against "obnoxious trades," and the Defendant was told that the premises were leasehold. A reference as to title was directed, having regard to the covenants in the lease and the purposes for which the premises were taken. 82 WILBBAHAM V. LIVESEY 18 BEAV. 20T. The Defendant agreed to take premises, situated in the Strand, from the Plaintiff, for a term of five years, at the yearly rent of 150. The agreement contained no stipulation as to covenants; but the Defendant, before it was entered into, knew, that the Plaintiff was only lessee of the premises, and the Plaintiffs solicitor told the Defendant that, "the term being for five years, an underlease would be necessary." The Plaintiff, on the other hand, was informed by the Defendant that he intended the premises for printing and publishing a newspaper; and, according to the Defendant's evidence, on his remarking to the Plaintiff that the cellar would make very good wine-vaults, and might be let off for that purpose, or it would do to erect a printing-machine or steam-engine, in the event of his " machining " the newspaper, the Plaintiff replied, it would do for either, and, if wanted for the latter purpose, a furnace-chimney was already there. On the subject of alterations, the Plaintiff stated that he had informed the Defendant that he held the premises on lease, and that he would have no objection to any alterations required for the convenience of the business, " provided they were not inconsistent with his [207] lease;" but the Defendant denied that any such observation was ever made, or that he knew that there was a lease at all, till he was afterwards told so...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cullen v O'Meara and Another
...2 Sim. 433. Lewis v. BondENR 18 Beav. 85. Smith v. CapronENR 7 Hare, 185. Vignoles v. BowenIR 12 Ir. Eq. 194. Wilbraham v. LiveseyENR 18 Beav. 206. Le Neve v. Le Neve 2 Wh. & Tud. 44, & c. In Re Hall's CharityENR 14 Beav. 121. Re Parke's CharityENR 12 Sim. 329. Re Lyford's CharityUNK 16 B. ......
-
Doody v Nolan
...The Gas Light and Coke Company v. TurnerENR 6 Bing. N. C. 324. Lord Donoughmnore v. ForrestUNK Ir. R. 5 C. L. 443. Wilbraham v. LivesayENR 18 Beav. 206. Hampshire v. Wickens 15 Ves. 258. Kearney v. Ryan 2 L. R. I. 61. — Assignment without consent of landlord — Covenant to deliver up the pos......
-
Maunsell v Hort
...Chapman Since reported, 7 Ch. Div. 271. Bonnett v. Sadler 11 Ves. 526. Hanbury v. Litchfield 2 M. & K. 629, 633. Wilbraham v. LiveseyENR 18 Beav. 206, 209. Macher v. The Foundling HospitalENR 1 V. & B. 188, 191. Dumpor's CaseUNK 4 Rep. 119. Roper v. WilliamsUNK 1 T. & R. 18. Peek v. Matthew......
-
Re Bright's Trusts
...v. Royse (2 Sch. & Lef. 327); Drysdale v. Mace (2 Smale & G. 25); Ex parte Hennessey (1 Con. & L. 559); Wilbraham v. Livesey (18 Beav. 206); Wilde v. Gibson (1 H. L. Gas. 605); Peacock v. Burt (Coote's Mortgages, App. 693); Ware v. Lard Egtrumt (4 De G. M. & G. 460); Foster v. Cockerdl (3 C......