Page images



property in London consisting of a piece of ground bounded on three sides by roads, and having upon it several houses (as per sketch).


Existing Houses./



The agreement provides that the builder is to erect at least two additional houses within two years, and so soon as they shall be roofed in a lease is to be granted for the whole property.

The terms of the proposed lease are annexed to the agreement, and one clause states that "if and when the lessee, his executors, &c., . . . shall be desirous of making a road" it shall be formed and completed to the satisfaction of the lessor's surveyor.

There is no other reference to any road-making either in the agreement or draft lease, and the above clause was inserted in the draft at the instance of the lessee to give him the option of constructing a road across the property at some future time, if he desired to do so.

The understanding between the parties-which although not embodied in the agreement is clearly shown by a voluminous correspondence-was that the two houses should be built in the position marked A on plan, but the authorities refused to consent to their being erected there or anywhere else, it being practically in front of the existing houses, but suggested that a scheme dealing with the whole property be submitted.


The consent of the authorities has eventually been obtained to a road being formed as shown by the dotted lines between B and C across the front gardens of existing houses, which would afford a new building frontage.

The owner's solicitor maintains that the builder is bound to make this road, as it is necessary to enable him to perform his covenant to build; while on behalf of the builder it is contended that he has not covenanted to make any road-which so far as any expressed covenant is concerned is correct and that he cannot carry out his agreement to build on the land as it is.

It may be stated that the builder has already spent considerable sums in improving the existing property under other clauses of the agreement and is most desirous of completing it, but refuses to make the road, which is under ordinary conditions essentially an owner's work for improving his property.

Is there any implied covenant on the part of the builder to make the road in order to perform his covenant to build ?

If not, could the builder lawfully throw up his agreement if the lessor (owner) will not make the road, seeing that it would be impossible to carry out, and therefore not enforceable or binding?



(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 176, 177.)

On an unenclosed common there are some sand and gravel pits from which private individuals are allowed to take sand and gravel on payment to the Lord of the Manor. The road surveyor, however, claims to take them for nothing. Under what circumstances can he be right in his contention!



(For Replies to this Query, see p. 177.)

Have inspectors authority to call upon landlords to place traps upon drains in farmyards, whether in villages or not?

A sewer passes down a country village street. It was put in by a former owner. Is the present owner liable to put traps on all gratings on the public street into which his drains discharge from farmhouses and yards adjoining?

The open gratings now existing are available for the surface water of the main road, which is useful for flushing purposes.



(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 177, 178.)

In many agricultural agreements in my neighbourhood it is stated that the tenant on leaving shall leave the horsemeat for the incoming tenant, on condition that the latter deliver the corn within a reasonable distance. In the instance which I have in mind the agreement says nothing, and the outgoing tenant prefers to deliver his own corn and charge for the horsemeat.

The incomer contends that he alone has the option. But has not the outgoer the option in the absence of agreement-the corn being his-to deliver if to his advantage, or to get the incomer to do so if more convenient?




(For Replies to this Query, see p. 178.)

How many years' purchase is generally considered fair for the tenant to receive for laying down arable land to permanent pasture? The increased letting value is not disputed.




(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 178, 179.)

The lessor of some cottage property in London serves the lessee with a notice to repair. He also sends an extract from the lease and a schedule of dilapidations.

The lease contains the usual covenant, "once in every three years to paint with two coats of good oil colour all external work previously painted."

(A.) Can the lessor recover from the lessee the expenses incurred in solicitors' and surveyors' fees for the preparation of the above extract and schedule?

(B.) The woodwork was grained before the lease was granted. Assuming that the graining is in good condition, has the covenant been satisfied by twice varnishing once in every three years?



(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 179, 180.)

A nuisance, under the Public Health Act, 1875, existed at a farmhouse let, with a farm, to a yearly tenant. The Court, under Section 97 of the Act, made an order prohibiting the use of the house for human habitation. The tenant thereupon vacated the house, but continued in the occupation of the land; and the landlord promised to pay the rent of a house near by, which the tenant hired, during the time taken in pulling down and reerecting the farmhouse. The new house was provided as soon as possible, and the tenant presses for additional compensation consequent on the disturbance caused by the action of the sanitary authority.

Is the landlord, who purchased the property shortly before the order was made, liable for payment of the additional compensation asked for?

The tenant had for some time seen the possibility of what took place, and could have given notice to quit, had he chosen; in fact he was asked by the landlord to go out, to have the house rebuilt, before the closing order was issued, but refused. It is a question whether an agreement of tenancy exists, but if it does, it contains the usual clauses for the tenant to repair (main walls, &c., excepted).




(For a Reply to this Query, see p. 180.)

A, the tenant of adjoining lands, becomes a yearly tenant of a small enclosure of arable land (one and a half acres in extent) at a yearly rent of £3 from January 1st, 1885. At one end of the said enclosure are situate two powder magazines, which are not included in his holding, and were unlet at the time of his entry. These magazines are subsequently let to B (a dealer in explosives, &c.) at a yearly rent of £10, from January 1st, 1886. He, wishing to have control of the whole enclosure, agrees (verbally) with A that from the time of his entry on the above-mentioned date he (B) shall become tenant of the whole, and from that date B has paid the whole rent, £13.

The condition on which A gave up possession and allowed B to become tenant of the whole was that he (A) should be allowed to cultivate the land rent free, but there is no written agreement to this effect.

B now wishes to take possession of and use for the purposes of his business the whole of the enclosure.

Is it necessary that he should give A a notice to quit ? Can A make good any claim upon B for tenant-right, either for a growing crop (wheat) or for unexhausted manures ?

Also, in the event of B's tenancy being determined by notice to quit from his superior landlord, if he does not acquaint A of the receipt of this notice, has A any legal claim for compensation from B?



(For a Reply to this Query, see p. 181.)

What are the liabilities of a lessee holding premises on a 61 years' lease renewable at certain specified periods by the payment of a fine? The lease contains a strict repairing covenant binding the lessee "to repair, "uphold, support, maintain, &c., and keep in good and sufficient repair "with all needful and necessary reparations whatsoever, and shall at the “end or sooner determination of this present demise yield up and leave "unto the said lessors, &c., the said demised premises sufficiently sustained, "maintained, upholden, &c., &c."

The premises were old at the time of granting the lease.

Does the fact of the lease being a renewable one in any way lessen the lessee's liability to repair?




(For Replies to this Query, see p. 182.)

The above section reads as follows: "And be it declared and enacted

that every half-yearly payment of rent-charge under the said recited "Acts or either of them or this Act shall from time to time be regulated

[ocr errors]

by the averages published under the provision of the said first recited "Act in the month of January next preceding every such half-yearly day of payment."


Now we have applied for a year's tithe due 1st October, last made up as follows:


[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

The agent to the landowner declines to pay, demurring to the first item and says that he has been in the habit of paying half-yearly at Lady-day and

« EelmineJätka »