Page images

Is it necessary to give notice to the adjoining owners under Section 87 sub-section 6 of the London Building Act, 1894, that new footings will be placed on their land?

It is assumed that the outside face of the present walls forms the boundary line of the property, and the new footings will not extend outside same, to any greater extent than the present footings do.



(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 47, 48.)

Section 43 of the Act refers to dwelling houses to be inhabited by persons of the "working classes." Has there been any definition of the expression, and dces it include persons like coachmen, waiters, &c.



(For Replies to this Query, see p. 49.)

Is it the law now, that if a landlord puts in an agricultural distraint for a year's rent, overdue (and within the time limit), and the teuant thereupon makes himself bankrupt, the landlord gets his year's rent (supposing of course the estate realizes sufficient); but, supposing the tenant files a petition in the first instance, the landlord can then only claim six months' rent in full, either by distraint or notice to Official Receiver?



(For Replies to this Query, see p. 49.)

In 1894 A, the owner of a large estate, sold to B a plot of land for building purposes on the fringe of a country town and adjoining a main road. In the deed of conveyance A specified a building line eight yards from the edge of the road, and stipulated that B, his heirs, executors, and assigns, were to "observe the building line."

B, in 1896, after building a pair of semi-detached villas, whose fronts were fourteen yards from the road, resold a portion of his plot unused to C, stipulating that C must observe a building line ten yards from the road.

Can B enforce this stipulation in the face of his undertaking with A the original vendor, to observe the building line eight yards from the road?



(For Replies to this Query, see p. 50.)

A finds particulars of a property for sale in an agent's register, takes an order to view, and subsequently makes an offer to purchase the property.

The offer is declined. A then requests the agent to get the vendor B to state" the lowest price he would take for the property." The agent communicated this to B, who wrote A under date May 8th: "We could “not take £ (A's offer) for this property, but I will let you know on "Monday next what we should be prepared to take."

The same day, May 8th, the agent had an interview with B, and then wrote to A as follows: "I have to-day seen B with respect to the above "(naming the property). He tells me that he is writing you to-night; I "understand the purport of his letter is that he cannot advise his client to "accept less than £ (amount stated) for the property."

A waited the day mentioned in B's letter, but B never wrote as promised, presumably because the lowest price was stated by the agent, while B acknowledges having informed his agent the price stated above, and instructed him to inform A, which agent confirms. B's letter and the agent's letter to A, quoted above, were both stamped at the Inland Revenue Office with sixpence. A has stated verbally and in writing that

he will purchase the property at B's lowest price. B now declines to sell at that price.

What remedy (if any) has A against B? Can A enforce specific performance?



(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 50, 51.)

Is it necessary to stamp party-wall awards, and, if so, how is the stamp duty regulated?



(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 51, 52.)

A tenant takes a lease of certain city premises for a term of 7, 14, 21 years (thereinafter described as the said term), with lessee's option to determine at 7, 14 years. The covenant to repair is as follows:-" The


[ocr errors]

"lessees will once in every seven years of the said term and in the last year thereof, paint with two coats of good oil colour in a good and "workmanlike manner, all such parts of the interior of the said premises as have previously been, or ought to be, painted, and will paper, white"wash, grain, and varnish all such parts of the interior of the said "premises as have previously been, or ought to be, papered, whitewashed, grained, or varnished." And a further clause if the option to determine is exercised and which states, inter alia:-


"If the lessees shall be desirous of determining this lease at the end of the first seven or fourteen years of the said term and of such desire shall give to the Corporation six calendar months previous notice in writing, then and in such case, but subject to the rights and remedies of the Corporation for or in respect of any rent in arrear or any breach of "the lessee's covenants." The lessees determined lease at the end of first seven years and they had during the seven years carried out the covenants to decorate in its entirety.

Query Are they liable to again paper, whitewash, paint, and varnish, &c., the offices? Are there any cases?



A notice is served under Section 93 of the London Building Act 1894 to build a wall within ten feet of the adjoining owner's premises. No counter-notice is served under the section, and no consent is given by the adjoining owner. After fourteen days does a difference arise under Section 90, Sub-section 12? The surveyor for the building owner meets the surveyor for the adjoining owner, and " without prejudice " appoints a third surveyor, but refuses to go to him or to make an award with the adjoining owner's surveyor (under Section 91), as he states no work has been done and no difference can have arisen; he also states Section 90 does not refer to work for which notice is given under Section 93. The surveyor for the adjoining owner now proposes to draw up an award under Section 91, Sub-section 12. Will he be correct in doing so?



(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 52, 53.)

What is intended by the words "timber in the rough" in a lease?
The following clause appears in the lease of a farm: "The tenant.... to

· erect all new fences and gates which he shall require at his own expense, the landlord providing and finding timber in the rough and other materials necessary for such new fences and gates."


Does it mean that the landlord has simply to fell and cut off the lop and top of the trees, and the tenant to saw up the trees into suitable material? Or does it mean that the landlord shall fell and saw up the trees into material of a suitable size for the purpose of repairing the said gates and fences? Or, in other words, is the landlord to do any sawing, and, if so, how much?



(For Replies to this Query, sec p. 53.)

I am the owner of land adjoining a beck. It is necessary for the drainage of my land that the beck should be cleaned out from time to time. I have now cleaned out half of the beck adjoining my land, but the owner of the land opposite declines to clean out his half. The owners below also decline to clean out the beck, therefore the drainage of my land is considerably interfered with. What steps should I take to compel the above-named owners to act?


(For a Reply to this Query, sec p. 53.)


[blocks in formation]

A is an existing public building; B are existing outbuildings on the same site. The existing side roadway is less than 40′ 0′′ wide, and the

[ocr errors]

'prescribed distance " and " centre of roadway" are shown by dotted lines It is desired to extend the building A over the portion C. Can this be done if the extension be kept within the prescribed distance? Would the space between the prescribed distance and the garden fence wall (to remain up) be termed a forecourt? Or must the garden wall be pulled down and the boundary set back to the prescribed distance ? There were

no previously existing buildings, structures, or forecourts on the portion C. There is undoubtedly a discretionary power vested in the L. C. C. to allow this (Section 13, Sub-section 4), but would Sub-section 1 of this clause allow an owner to build as above?



[blocks in formation]

A and B have land not built on at the rear of vacant land of C in the metropolis. All three owners desire to build factories on their land.

If C makes a cartway over his land to the land of A and B, and grants them a private right of way to their land with gates at entrance, would it be necessary to obtain the sanction of the London County Council, or would it not be governed by Wood v. London County Council and London County Council v. Davis?

« EelmineJätka »