William Forrester Bramley, Appellant, Joseph Chesterton, Respondent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 May 1857 |
| Date | 29 May 1857 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 140 E.R. 548
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 27 L. J. C. P. 23; 3 Jur. N. S. 1104; 5 W. R. 690.
[592] william forrester bramley, Appelhnt, joseph chesterton, Respondent. May 29th, 1857. [S. C. 27 L. J. C. P. 23; 3 Jur. N. S. 1104; 5 W. E. 690.] Where a tenant holds over after the expiration of a notice to quit, the landlord is , entitled to recover against him the reasonable damages and costs sustained by him in an action at the suit of a party to whom he had contracted to let the premises, 2 C. B. (N. S.) 593. BBAMLEY ' V. CHESTERTON 549 but to whom the tenant's wrongful act had prevented him from delivering possession. This was an action to recover the sum of 501., that is to say, 401. damages sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the defendant having neglected and refused to deliver up to the plaintiff, when thereunto lawfully required by him, the possession of a certain dwelling-house situate in Granby Street, in the parish of St. Margaret, in the borough of Leicester, of which dwelling-house the defendant had been the occupier as tenant to the plaintiff, and for the determination of which tenancy due notice had been given by the plaintiff to the defendant; and also 101., the value of two shop-windows, door, and shutters, with the fixings and appendages, unlawfully removed by the defendant from the above-mentioned dwelling-house. The cause was tried before the judge of the said court, without a jury, upon the 22nd of October, 1856. The plaintiff proved that he was the landlord of the premises mentioned in the plaint, which in May, 1855, were in the occupation of the defendant as tenant from year to year, at the rent of 351. a year. Before the 24th of June, 1855, the plaintiff gave notice in writing to the defendant to quit the said premises on Christmas-day then next. After service of the notice to quit, and so soon as time had expired so that the plaintiff could not give defendant fresh notice to quit at Lady Day, the defendant called upon the plaintiff, and refused to give up possession pursuant thereto, alleging; among other reasons, that his tenancy did not commence at Christmas, and that the notice was informal on other grounds. The defendant also [593] immediately instructed his solicitor to. write to the plaintiff; and, on the 27th of August, 1855, the following letter was accordingly sent:- "Leicester, August 27th, 1855. " Sir,-Mr. Chesterton has brought me a notice to quit sent or delivered by you, directing him to give up possession of the house he now occupies in Granby Street, in this town; on perusing which, and some other documents connected with the tenancy of those premises, it would seem that your notice is informal and invalid on several grounds. " Thinking you might probably act under the supposition that the notice was good, and that he would leave the premises at the time stated in your notice, I am directed by Mr. Chesterton to acquaint you that he does not intend to give up the premises at that time, unless some satisfactory arrangement be previously made for putting an end to the tenancy.-Yours, &c., " paul dudley." The plaintiff at such interview informed the defendant that he the plaintiff had let the premises as from' Christmas then next to Mr. Thomas Harcott, at an increased rent, and that therefore the defendant must go out. The defendant then requested the plaintiff to see if he could arrange with Mr. Harcott to forego his agreement, and he, the defendant, would pay the increased rent. Accordingly the plaintiff saw Mr. Harcott, who refused to give up his agreement, and informed the plaintiff that he should bring an action to enforce it if he were not duly let into possession; that he, Harcott, had given notice to quit his then shop; and that he could not recede from the bargain. This conversation was communicated by the plaintiff to the defendant, who said thereupon that he, the defendant, did not care, that he could not give up the premises. [594] The defendant did accordingly refuse to quit the said premises pursuant to the said notice; whereupon the plaintiff entered a plaint in the said Leicestershire county-court, and thereupon a summons issued to the defendant; and, upon the said summons coming on to be heard upon the 19th of March, 1856, it was adjudged by the said court that the plaintiff recover of the said defendant the said premises, together with costs of suit: and it was ordered that the defendant should forthwith quit and deliver up possession of the said premises, and that, if necessary, a warrant should issue for that purpose; and it was further ordered that the defendant should pay to the clerk of the court, at his office, 71. for the plaintiff's costs. Before the said 19th of March, 1856, the plaintiff was served with a writ in the court of Exchequer at Westminster, at the suit of the said Thomas Harcott, of which writ the defendant had notice, and subsequently with a declaration for breach of the 550 BRAMLEY V. CHESTERTON 2 C. B. (IT. S.) 595: said agreement, wherein the said Thomas Harcott claimed of the plaintiff 1001. as damages. The defendant, on or before the 24th of March, 1856, sent Mr. Herbert, as his agent, to the plaintiff, and offered to pay him 81. 15s. in respect,of rent and damages due to him the plaintiff, provided he the plaintiff would sign a receipt tendered by Herbert, and which purported to be in discharge of rent and all damages, but the plaintiff refused to do so, and said that he could not give a receipt for damages, because he did not know what he should have to pay in Harcott's action ; but the...
To continue reading
Request your trial