« ForrigeFortsett »
payable as aforesaid, with all covenants, grants, and 1806. articles as in the then present indenlures were contain- IGGULDEN ed, meaning the said indenture; by virtue of which said
MAY deinise the said John Iggulden, Elizabeth Fleetwood; and Sarah Iggulden, entered and became thereof posó sessed. The declaration then stated, divers mesne assignments, whereby the premises became vested in the plaintif, who entered and was possessed thereof for the residue of the term ; that the reversion during the continuance of the said term, came to and vested in the said defendant, who from thence continually hitherto hath been and is still intitled thereto. And the plaintiff averred that the aforesaid indenture of lease contained no other covenant, grant, article,' or clause than such as are hereinbefore recited and set forth; and that the covenants, grants, and articles, in that indenture contained, correspond (except as 10 the date and naines of the parties, with those expressed in various other leases before then successively made and executed of the premises comprised in the said first mentioned indenture by the owners, for the time being, of the inheritance thereof on renewals from time to time, granted by such owners at the like yearly rent of 6s. 9d. in consideration of a like sum of 5l. 8s. paid in the nature of a fine, upon every such renewal. That the plaintiff duly performed the covenants on his part; and assigned a breach, that, after the said assignment of the said reversion to the said defendant as aforesaid, and whilst the said pluintiff continued so possessed of the said demised premises as aforesaid, and before the end of eighteen years of the said terın of twenty-one years granted by the said indenture of lease, to wit, on the twenty-first day of September in the year of our Lord 1801, at Deal aforesaid, he the said plaintiff gave notice to the said defendant of the said demised premises having been so assigned to him the said plaintiff as aforesaid; and then and there ren quested the said defendant, as assignee of the said rever.
.806. “sion as aforesaid, at the proper costs and charges of IGGulden the said plaintiff, to make, seal, and deliver unto him a
new lease of the said twenty-seven perches of ground, with the appurtenances for the like fine or consideration of 51.8s. for the like time and term of twenty-one years, at the like yearly rent of 6s. 9d. payable as in the said indenture of lease is mentioned, with all covenants, grants, and articles, as in the said indenture of lease were contained, and particularly with such covea pant or article for renewal as is contained therein, under the like terms as expressed in that indenture, according to the form and effect of the same indenture, and although the said plaintiff was then and there ready and willing, and offered to the said defendant to bear and pay the costs and charges of such new lease, and to pay him such fine or consideration of 51. 8s.as last aforesaid, yet the said defendant did not nor would at the time when he was so requested as aforesaid, or · at any time afterwards, make, seal, or deliver unto
the said plaintilj, a new lease of thie said 27 perches of ground, with the appurtenances for such time and term of twenty-one years at such yearly rent of 6s. Id. payable as is in the said indenture of lease mentioned, with all covenants, grants, and articles as in the said indenture of lease were contained, &c.
The defendant after oyer of the indenture, protesting that the covenants, grants, and articles, in the said indenture of demise contained, do not correspond with those expressed in various other leases before then successively made, and executed of the premises comprised in that indenture by the owners for the time being of the inheritance thereof, upon renewals from time to time granted by such owners as in the said declaration is above alledged, that pleaded continually since the said defen
dant became seised of the said reversion of the said de-
thereof for the residue of the said term, he the said de-
and deliver unto the said plaintiff a new lease of the 1806. said 27 perches of ground with the appurtenances, for loo the like fine or consideration of 5). 8s. for the like time and term of 21 years, at the like yearly rent of 6s. Od. payable as in the said indenture of demise mentioned, with all such covenants, grants, and articles, as in the said indenture of demise are contained, excepting only the said covenant or article therein contained for granting a new lease of the said demised premises, to wit, at Deal aforesaid, whereof the said plaintiff there had notice, and that he the said defendant when he was so requested to make, seal, and deliver a new lease of the said premises as in the said declaration is mentioned, to wit, on the 27th day of September, 1801, at Deal aforesaid, did nake and seal a new lease of the said 27 perches of ground with the appurtenances unto the said plaintiff, for the like fine or, consideration of 51. Ss. for the like tiine and terın of 21 years, at the like yearly rent of os. Id. payable as in the said indenture of demise is mentioned, with all such covenants, grants, and articles, as in the said indenture of demise are contained, excepting only the said covenant or article therein contained for granting a new lease of the said demis. ed premises, and that he the said defendant did also then and there give notice to the said plaintif, that he the said defendant had made and sealed such lease as aforesaid, and did also then and there tender and offer to deliver the said lease so made and sealed by him the said defendant to the said plaintiff, which the said plaintiff then and there wholly refused to accept; which said lease so made and sealed by the said defendant, and so tendered and offered as aforesaid, is as follows, (here the lease was set out verbatim.) And the said defendant further says, that the premises comprized in and described by the said lease so made and sealed, and tendered, and offered by the said defendant, are No. XXXI. N, S,
the same identical premises wbich are mentioned and demised by the said indenture of demise by the said pluintiff, brought here iuto court, &c.
To this there was a general deinurrer, and the defendont joined in demurrer; which was argued in Easter term last by MARRYAT, for the pluintilf, and ABBOTT, for the defendunt. I was not present during the arguinent; but the judgment of the court goes so fully into the case, and the opinion of the Lord Chancellor is so fully detailed in the report of the same case in the court of Chancery, in 2 Vezey, Jun. 395,* that it would be unnecessary to state them. The cases and authorities mentioned in the margin below appear from the papers in the cause to have been priocipally referred to.t
And now the judgment of the court was delivered to the following effect by
* It was by the direction of the Lord CHANCELLOR that this action was brought.
+ Cases referred to for the plaintiff---Cooke v. Booth, Corp. $19, by Lord Bathurst, Lord Mansfield and others, 1798 ;' Bridges v. Hickcock, 5 Bro. P. C. 6, IIouse of Lords, 1715 ; Luruital. v, Crexe, 3 Atkins, by Lord Hurdwicke, 1742 ; Anderson va l'itcher, 2 B. and P. 164. Har. Arg. 425,427, 4,36, 139, 110, 111.. Cases referred to for the defendantHyde v. Skinner, 2 P. Ililliams, 196, by Lord Macclesfield in Michuclmas, 1723; Davis v. Toylor's Company, llarg. Arg. 427, by Sir Joseph Jekyll, 1726; Russell v. Dur. wir, 2 Bro. C. C. 639, by Lord Cambılen, (notes) 1767; Reece v. Lord Dacre, 2 Bro. C. C. 638, by Lord Thur.' loro, 1788; Tritton v. 1oote, 2 Bru. C. C. 636, by Lord Thurloc, 1789 ; Earl of Inchiquin v. Burnell, Hurg. Arg. by Trisk Tlouse of Lords, 1795 ; Baynham v. Guy's Hospital, 3 Ves. Jun. 298, by Lord Alvanley, 1796 ; Eaton v. Lyon, 3 Ves. Jun. 690, by Lord Alvanley, 1798 ; Moore v. Foley, 6 Ves. Jun, 232, by Sir William Grant, 1801 ; Taylor y, Stibbart, 2 V'es. Jur. 437, by Lord Roslyn, 1794.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. after reading over ile 1806. pleadings andobserving "that the words upon which the IOCUIDEN question for the decision of the court principally arose, er were these, 'with all covenants, grants, and articles as in these present indentures are contained ;', the question arising upon the whole of this record is, whether the plaintiff' Mr. Iggulden, was entitled to have a lease executed to him, containing the covenant of renewal; and wbich question principally depends on the intent of the parties to be collected from an instrument-inaccurately framed, and from its shortness affording little matter from whence arguments can be drairn to' explain the meaning of it. The rules of construction applicable to covenants are so well known, that it is unnecessary to shew that every covenant is to be explained by the words in the context; by whát goes before and what follows, ex antecedentibus et consequentibus, which is the rule in Plowden,* and according to the reasonable sense and construction of the words themselves. According to which rule, and paying a due attention to the apparentintent of the parties, covenants . expressed in large and general terms have been narrowed in their construction ; Gage v. Parton, and Broughton v. Conwny ;I now by applying that rule to this case, it is to be seen whether the construction of this covenant to grant a new lease of the premises for the like fine or cons sideration of 5l. Ss. for the like, time and terin of. 21 years, at the like yearly, rent of Os. 9d. payable as atore-. . said, with all covenants, grants,' and articles, as in these present indentures are contained;" I say it is to be seen, whether the construction of these words is not to be narrowed, so as to except this particular co. venant. And though some attempts were inade in argument on the part of the plaintif to shew that this