William Woodfall.

Woodfall's Law of landlord and tenant (Volume 2) online

. (page 22 of 54)
Online LibraryWilliam WoodfallWoodfall's Law of landlord and tenant (Volume 2) → online text (page 22 of 54)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

held, that though B. had no knowledge of A.'s covenant
with the grantor he was put upon iiKjuiry, was fixed with
constructive notice of the covenant, and could be restrained
by injunction from selling spirits Qj'). And in one
case Jessel, M. R., * went so far as to say that even [*666]
an express representation by a lessor that there were

D. 747; 48 L. J., Ch. 223; .JO L. T. W. R. G40. (Damages only awarded,

391; 27 W. R. 285. as no substantial injury.)

(6) Patman v. Harland, L. R., 17 (</) Husselh-. BalKr,"l!S W. R. 1021,

Ch. D. 353 ; 50 L. ,1., Ch. 642 ; 44 L. (e) Ante, 6(50.

T. 728; 29 W. R. 707, ;)pr Jessel, M. (/) Reeves v. Cattell, 24 W. R.

R., who said however that " a fair and 485.
reasonable adjunct " might be erected. (g) Fielden v. Slater, L. R., 7 Eq.

(r) Bowes V. Law, K. R., 9 Eq. 636 ; 523; 38 L. J., Ch. 379; 20 L. T. 112;

39 L. J., Ch. 433; 22 L. T. 207 ; 18 17 W. R. 485.



no restrictive covenants affecting the demised property would
not do away with the effect of " constructive notice " (A).

Sublessee bound by restrictive covenants of head landlord.
— On similar principles, it has been held that a sublessee is
bound by the restrictive covenants entered into by a head
landlord when he purchased the freehold, although neither
the mesne landlord nor the sublessee has actual notice of
them (f).

Covenant against trade of butcher. — A covenant in a lease,
that the lessee shall not exercise the trade of a butcher upon
the premises, is broken by selling there raw meat by retail,
although no beasts are slaughtered (/c). So a covenant not
to carry on the business of a pork-butcher on the demised
premises, nor to use them for the sale of pork, is broken by
the exposure there of carcasses of pigs for sale, although
such carcasses are cut up and contracts for the sale thereof
completed elsewhere in the neighbourhood (Z).

School. — Where a lessee of a house and garden cove-
nanted with the lessor not to use or exercise, or permit or
suffer to be used or exercised, upon the demised premises,
or any part thereof, any trade or business whatsoever, &c.,
without the licence of the lessor, &c., and afterwards, with-
out the licence of the lessor, assigned the lease to a school-
master, who carried on his business in the house and prem-
ises ; it was held that such assignment was a breach of the
covenant (m). But a school has been held not 'to be a
nuisance within the meaning of a general covenant against
nuisances (w). A covenant not to carry on "any public
business" in a house, but that it should "be used solely as
a private dwelling-house," is broken by using it as a day-
school and dancing academy, notwithstanding that the next-
door neighbours make no complaints (o), and in German v.

(A) Patman v. Harland, L. R., 17 (0 Doe d. Davis v. Elsam, Moo. &

Ch. D. at p. 356, and ante, 665, note M. 189.

(6). See also NicoU v. Jenning, 30 (m) Doe d. Bish v. Keeling, 1 M. &

W. R. 95. S. 95 ; Kemp v. Sober, 1 Sim., N. S. 517.

(i) Thornewell v. Johnson, 50 L. J., (n) Harrison v. Good, L. R., 11 Eq.

Ch. 641 ; 44 L. T. 768. 338 ; 40 L. J., Ch. 294 ; 24 L. T. 263 ;

(k) Doe d. Gaskell v. Spry, 1 B. & 19 W. R. 346.

A. 617. (o) Wickenden v. Webster, 6 E. &



Chapman (/>) it was held by llie Court of Ap[)eal that a
covenant — of even date with a conveyance of sale — that
no buikling to be erected on tlie four acre i)lot of land sold
"■sliould be used or occupied otherwise than as a private
residence only, and not for any purpose of trade " was
broken by the erection of a boarding-school large enough to
accommodate 100 girls, but supported by voluntary contri-
butions, being an " Institution for the Education of
the Daughters of * Missionaries." Rolls v. Miller (^), [*667]
in which the words were " trade or business," is to
the like effect.

Hospital. — A hospital, the patients of which make small
payments according to their means, is a " business " within
a covenant by lessee " not to carry on any trade, business
or dealing whatsoever, or anything of the nature thereof "
upon the demised premises (r). This was held in a case
where the hospital was a " throat and chest " hospital, and
the covenant also contained the words, " or suffer any act
or thing which may be or grow to the annoyance, damage,
injury, prejudice, or inconvenience of the neighbouring prem-
ises." Upon these words also there was held to have been
a breach of the covenant, so that the case may be supported
on another ground. The injunction granted was " not to be
enforced for two months." Similarly, the user of a house
for a hospital association, established without a view to
profit, to provide accommodation for patients able and will-
ing to pay for it, is an infringement of a covenant not to use
the house for the exercise "or carrying on of any ait, trade
or business, occupation or calling" (.s).

Shop. — A covenant not to convert a dwelling-house into
a shop means a structural conversion, and not merely expos-
ing goods for sale (€).

B. 387 ; Johnstone v. Hall, 2 K. & J. (r) Bramwcll v. Lacy, L. R., 10 Ch.
414; 25 L. J., Cli. 402. D. 691 ; 48 L. J., Ch. 3:J9; 40 L. T.

(/O L. R., 7 Ch. D. 271 ; 47 L. J., 361 ; 27 VV. R. 403, per Jessel, M. R.
Ch. 250; 37 L. T. 685; 20 W. R. 149, (s) Portman v. Home Hospitals As-

C. A., reversing decision of Bacon, sociation, L. R., 27 Ch. D. 81, n. ; 60
V.-C, 37 L. T. 205. L. T. 599, per Jessel, M. R.

(7) Rolls V. Miller, 27 Ch. D. 71 ; 53 (<) Wilkinson v. Rogers, 2 De Gex,

L. J., Ch. 082 ; 50 L. T. 597 ; 32 W. R. J. & S. 02 ; 12 W. R. 119, 284.
806, C. A. (Home for Working Girls).



" Offensive trade." — A lease containing a covenant not to
cany on certain specified trades or businesses, or " any offen-
sive trade," is not forfeited by using the premises as a private
lunatic asylum (m), or for the business of a licensed victual-
ler (a:), or for the deposit of lucifer matches (?/).

" Business." — Payment by inmates to the lessee is not
essential to constitute a business ; nor does payment neces-
sarily make that a business which without payment would
not be a business (2).

Sale of beer, &c. — Carrying on the business of a " retail
brewer " has been held to be no breach of a covenant not to
carry on the business of a common brewer or retailer of
beer (a). More recentl}", a covenant made in 1854 not to
use the trade or calling of a seller by retail of " wine, beer,
spirits or spirituous liquors," was held not to be broken by
the sale of wine and spirits in bottle by a grocer, under an
act passed in 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 21), on the ground that,
at the time the covenant was made, this would not have

been a selling by retail (?>).
[*668] * Application of beer acts, &c. — It is expressly pro-
vided by statute that any covenant in a lease "be-
tween any landlord and tenant " against the trade of a vict-
ualler or publican being carried on " in any house mentioned
or comprised " in the lease, or against the house being used
as a ""public house or ale house," shall apply to every person
licensed to sell beer or cider under the Beer Act, 1830 (c),
and likewise to every person licensed to sell wine to he corv-
sumed on the premises under the Wine Act, 1860 (cT).

"Vintner." — The expression "vintner" in such a covenant
has been held to apply to a person selling wine not to be
drunk on the premises (f').

(m) Doe d. Wetherell v. Bird, 6 C. (i) Jones v. Bone, L. R., 9 Eq. 674 ;

& P. 195; 2 A. & E. 161. 39 L. J., Ch. 405; 23 L. T. 304; 18

(x) Jones r. Thorne, 1 B. & C. 715. "W. R. 489; distinguishing Fielden v.

(y) Hickman v. Isaacs, 4 L.'T. 285. Slater, supra, 665. See also Pease v.

Here the works were "noisome or Coats, L. R., 2 Eq. 688.

offensive." (r) 1 Will. 4, c. 64, s. 31.

(z) Rolls r. Miller, 27 Ch. D. 71, (d) 23 Vict. c. 27, s. 44.

ante, note (<]). («) Wells v. Attenborough, 24 L. T.

(a) Simons i\ Farren, 1 Bing. N. C. 312.
126, 272.


Cii. XVir. S. 4] PARTlCULAll TKADES. *668

Beer-shop and beer-house. — A covenant not to \ise a house
as a l>eer-i</ioj> or public-house has been held to be broken by
the sale of beer not fa he drimk on the preintseti (^f), to wliich
kind of sale, however, a covenant not to use a house as a
heer-hou»e had previously been held not to extend (//), and
has also subsequently been held not to extend (/<). In con-
struing a t;ovenant not to carry on any offensive trade or
business on premises demised, muttli will dc[)end on the situ-
ation of the premises : and it is particularly worthy of con-
sideration, whether such trade as that com[)lained of was
carried on there at tlie time of the demise ; for if it
were, it could scarcely be thought to come within the (cove-
nant (i).

Theatrical covenant. — In Croft V. Lumley. a lease of the
Opera House contained a covenant on the pait of the lessee
not to use the house for any but purposes of a theatrical
kind, and " to use his best endeavours to improve " tlie
house for that purpose. The house was closed at the end
of the season of 1852, and was not opened at all during the
following year. It w;vs held by the House of Lords that this
was not a breach of the covenant (/").

Post-office. — And a covenant to use the demised premises
"as a post-oHicc and not for any other purpose," was held
not to be broken by the issue of Inland Revenue licences
under the authority of 32 & 33 Vict. c. 14, s. 18 (/).

"Waiver of forfeiture. — If a lessee exercise a trade upon the
demised premises, by which his lease is forfeited, the land-
lord does not, by merel}' lying by and witnessing the act for
six years, waive the forfeiture, some positive act of waiver

(./■) St. Albans (Bishop of) !•. Bat- (i) Guttc'ri(l<,H' r. Mayiiard. 7 C &

torsby, 8 Q. B. I). 359; 47 L. J., Q. B. P. 12!), /.rr Tindal, C. .1."

r)71; :J8 1.. T. 085; 20 W. H. (578; {k) Croft /•. Lumk-y, C II. L. ("as.

affirinc'd in London and Suburban Co. 072; 27 L. .1., Q. H. ;J21.

V. Field, C. A., 10 Ch. I). (!4r,; 44 L. (/) Wadiiani r. Postmastcr-(n'nfral,

T. 444. 24 L. T. iA'y. And see Doc r. Church-

('/) London and Nortii Western U. wardens of Hujjeley.O (i. B. 107, where
Co. r. Garnett, L. K., P]q. 20 ; 3!> a eovenant to use a house as a poor-
ly. J., Ch. 25; 21 L. T. .352 ; 18 \V. R. Imuse only, was lield not to be broken
240. l)y eeasiiifr so to use it after tlie jtass-

(/() Holt c. Collyer, L. H., KJ Ch. ing of the Poor Law Amendment Act,

V>. 718; 50 L. .1., Ch. 311; 44 L. I". wliich compelled the non-user.
211: 29 W. R. 502, ^.tr Fry, .1



being necessary ; but if he permit the tenant to ex-
[*669] pend money * in improvements to adapt them to that

trade, it would be evidence for the jury of his con-
sent to their being so used («0- ^^ I'^nt be received for
twenty years, with full knowledge of the breach of covenant,
and without any objection, a licence binder seal may be pre-
sumed and found by the jury (n). Where there is a cove-
nant against carrying on a particular trade without a written
licence, the mere fact of the lessor's suffering the tenant to
carry on one trade on the premises will not afterwards au-
thorize his carrjdng on another without a written licence (o).
Continuing breach. — A covenant not to carry on or suffer
upon the demised premises during the term any specified
trades or businesses, or any trade or business whatever, is a
covenant of a continuing nature, and broken from day to day
so long as any prohibited trade or business is carried on (p) ;
but where a plumber was found to be in occupation of the
demised premises, and the landlord had received two quar-
ters' rent with knowledge of the occupation, it was said that
the waiver by receipt of rent must be taken to extend to
some term, and that the plumber must be supposed to have
had at least a tenancy from year to year, so that an ejectment
could not be sustained (t^).

Covenants to work mines. — An agreement to work a mine
as long as it is " fairly workable," does not oblige the tenant
to work it at a dead loss (r), nor does a covenant to "get the
demised clay to the fullest practicable extent consistent with
the means of sale of bricks and tiles to be derived therefrom,"
althouo'h a means of sale at an unremunerative rate might
be found (s), but an agreement to work " in the most proper
and effective manner" is broken by a cessation from working,

(m) Doe d. Sheppard v. Allen, 3 (p) Doe d. Ambler v. Woodbridge,

Taunt. 78 ; Doe d. Boscawen v. Bliss, 9 B. & C. -376 ; Cole Ejec. 43-3.

4 Taunt. 735 ; Doe d. Bryan v. Bancks, (g) Griffin v. Tonikins, 42 L. T. 459 ;

4 B. & A. 401. see Walrond v. Hawkins, L. R., 10 C.

(n) Gibson v. Doeg, 2 H. «& N. 615; P. 42, aiite, for the ratio decidendi of

27 L. J., Ex. 37 ; Bridges v. Longman, this case.

24 Beav. 27. (r) Jones v. Shears, 7 C. & P. 346.

(o) Macher v. Foundling Hospital, (s) Newton v. Nock, 43 L. T. 197,

1 V. & B. 188 ; 23 & 34 Vict. c. 38, per Denman, J.
s. 6.



although the dead rent be paid (/). "Coal seams workable
as coal seams," means workable at a profit, including the coal
and fire clay, &c. to which the tenant is entitled (?<). Where
lessees of mines entered into an absolute uncjuulified cove-
nant to get 2,000 tons of rock salt in each year during tlu;
continuance of the term, or pay for the deficiency : held, that
they were liable, wliether the salt could be got easily or with
difficulty, and tliat whether it existed at all was imma-
terial (.f). So, where lessees of a mine had cove-
nanted with all reasonable diligence * to sink the [*670]
shafts down to the salt: held, that they were bound
to do so, although it might be an unreasonable application of
time and labour (i-). So, where the lessees of a mine cove-
nanted to work it during the continuance of the term in a
proper and workmanlike manner, it was held, that they must
be taken to have covenanted to work the mine in some wai/^
in as prudent and proper a manner as they could under the
circumstances, and therefore had no right to al)andon the
works altogether, notwithstanding that the mine was drowned
by an influx of brine, which rendered it impossible to work
the mine at a profit (a;). A lessee of iron mines covenanted
to work them, unless prevented by accident or want of ma-
terials, or unless the ironstone should be insufficient in
quantity or quality, or would not by itself, or with a projjer
mixture or process, make good common pig-iron. It was
held, that the mixture intended was not necessarily of in-
gredients procurable on the demised premises (^). In an-
other case, there was a demise of all mines which had been,
or during the demise should be, discovered or open under
certain lands, and there was a covenant by the lessee that
he would work the said mines in a proper and workmanlike
manner; and it was held, that no action lay on the covenant
if the mines had never been worked either before or since

(0 Kinsman i;. Jackson, 42 I.. T. (i/) Carr r. Benson, L. R., .•5 Cli.

80, affirmed lb. 558. The dictum of App. 524.

Malins, V.-C, in Wheatley v. lirynibo (x) Jervis r. Tomkinson, 1 II. & N.

Coal Co., L. R., 9 Eq. 538, that it is 195.

enough if the dead rent be paid, (y) Foley i;. Addenbrooke, 13 M. &

would seem not to be law. See per W. 174.
Jessel, M. R., 42 L. T. 558.



the demise (s). On the construction of a proviso that the
lease shoukl be void if the tenant ceased working at anytime
for two years, it was held, that a fraudulent working for a
short time would not prevent a forfeiture (a).

Public-house covenants. — Where a lessee covenanted to use
his utmost endeavours to continue the house open as a public-
house, and the licence was taken away by the magistrates on
account of the disorderly conduct of a subtenant, and was
not renewed for six years, when the lease expired ; it was
held, that the covenant was broken, because the lessee had
done no act to endeavour to get the licence renewed (&). But
there is no implied covenant by the lessee of a public-house
that he will do no act whereby the licence shall become for-
feited (c) ; and even an express covenant that the lessee would
do no act which could or might '■'• affect, lessen, or make void "
the licence was held not to be broken by a conviction of the
lessee which might have been but was not recorded on his
licence under the Licensing Acts (tZ). Moreover, an agree-
ment not to do anything to " imperil " the licence of a beer
house has been held not to be broken by the mere ab-
[*671] sence of the * licensee away at sea (e). A stipulation
for similar covenants to those of an old lease will not,
if a licence has become forfeited, entitle the intending landlord
to a covenant to procure a licence, but only to a covenant for
best endeavour to obtain and keep up one (/).

Protection of landlord under licensing acts. — It may. be here
stated that, by sect. 56 of the Licensing Act, 1872 (35 & 36
Vict. c. 94), " where any tenant of any licensed premises is
convicted of an offence " against that act, and such offence is
one, the repetition of which may render the premises liable to
be disqualified from recei\dng a licence for any period," the
clerk of the peace is bound to serve notice of the conviction
upon the owner of the premises. By the same section, the

(s) Quarrington ?•. Arthur, 10 M. & (d) Wooler v. Knott, L. R., 1 Ex.

W. 335. D. 205; 45 L. J., Ex. 313; 34 L. T.

(a) Doe d. Bryan v. Bancks, 4 B. 362; 24 W. R. 1004 (C. A.).

& A. 401 ; Gow. 220. (e) Moore v. Robinson, 48 L. J., Q.

(6) Linder v. Prior, 8 C. & P. 518. B. 156, per Lush, J.

(c) Maw V. Hindmarsh, 28 L. T. (f) Shepheard v. Walker, 34 L. T.

644. 230.



owiKu- may ap[)eal to petty sessions against a (lisipialilicatioii
of the licensed [)ieniises on the grounds onl}' — (1) ''that the
required notice has not ht'cn served;" (2) "that the tenant
by whom the offence was conunitted held under a contract
made prior to the commencement of the act, and that the
owner could not legally have evicted the tenant in the inter-
val between the commission of the offence, in respect of which
the dis(pialif3'ing order was made, and the receipt by liim of
the notice of the immediately preceding offence which on re^)-
etition renders the premises liable to be disqualified from
receiving a licence at any period ; " or (3) " that tlie offence
in respect of which the dis(|ualifying order was made occurred
so soon after the receipt of such last-mentioned notice that the
owner, notwithstanding he had legal powei- to evict the tenant,
could not with reasonable diligence have exercised that power
in the interval which occurred between the said notice and
the second offence/'

Temporary authority for landlord to sell. — Moreover, by
sect. 15 of the Licensing Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 49), a
temporary authority may be obtained by or on behalf of the
landlord of licensed premises to carry on the business in case
of the licence of the tenant being declared forfeited on con-
viction of felony, or of certain offences against the licensing
acts therein mentioned.

Covenant not to let adjoining house for similar trade. — A
covenant by a landlord of an eating-house not to let any house
in the same street as the demised premises "for the purpose
of carrying on the business of an eating-house " will not be
construed to oblige the landlord to enforce a covenant by the
lessee of an adjoining house not to carry on any business with-
out the consent of the lessor, unless it be shown that the ad-
joining house was let with the intention of allowing the pro-
hibited business to be carrieil on (//).

Permission of sale by auction. — A lease of a house in
a town not unfrequently contains a covenant that the

(g) Kemp v. Bird, L. R., 5 Ch. D. 074 ; 40 L. J., Ch. 828; 37 L. T. 53; 25
W.R. 838 (C. A.).



lessee will not permit a sale by auction therein with-
[*672] out the * consent of the lessor. Such a covenant was

held broken where the lessee gave a bill of sale on his
goods, with power to the grantee to sell b}'^ auction in default
of payment, although the lessee had mortgaged the house by
a sublease, and executed a general assignment for tlie benefit
of his creditors (A). A covenant to use a house as a private
house only is not broken by a sale by auction of the furni-
ture (?*).

Sect. 5. — Dealing with Particular Persons.

Contracts to deal with lessor only. — Covenants or under-
takings entered into by the lessee to deal with the lessor
alone in the way of trade, or indeed any other mode of bind-
ing a party to purchase articles of particular individuals, are
not favoured by the courts. The question upon the validity
of such covenants has generally arisen with respect to leases
granted by brewers to publicans, to enforce which it must
be proved that good beer — "good marketable beer" (^), and
perhaps also such beer as the publican requires (0 — was sup-
plied (m) ; and the quality cannot be shown to be good by
evidence that the brewer served good beer to his other cus-
tomers at the same period of time (m). It is, however, now
clearly settled that such covenants, which are extremely
common, are legal and binding in equity on an assignee,
whether they run with the land or not, provided he have
actual or constructive notice of them (ji).

A covenant to buy of the lessor only is satisfied by buy-
ing tln-ough an agent of the lessee although the lessor

(A) Toleman v. Portbury, L. R., 7 D. 227; 47 L. J., Ch. 174; 37 L. T.

(^. B. 344; 41 L. J., Q. B. 98; 26 L. 827; 26 W. R. \Ql,per Fry, J.

T. 292 ; 20 W. R. 441 (Ex. Ch.). A (/) Edwick v. Hawkes, infra.

private house where a sale by auction (?h) Ilolcombe v. Hewson, 2 Camp,

takes place has been held a " place of 391 ; Cooper v. Twibill, 3 Camp. 286,

public resort" within the Vagrant n.; Thornton v. Sherratt, 8 Taunt.

Act, 5 Geo. 4, c. 83, s. 4 ; Sewell, app. 529.

V. Taylor, resp., 7 C. B., N. S. 160. (n) Wilson v. Hart, L. R., 1 Ch.

(/) Reeves r. ("attell, 24 W. R. App. 463; Catt v. Tourle, L. R., 4

485. Ch. App. 654, 659 ; Luker ik Dennis,

(X) Luker /■. Dennis, L. R., 7 Ch. ubi supra.



would have refused to sell to such agent, if he had known
for whom he was agent. This was held in a case where a
publican employed an agent to buy of his brewer-landlord
beer of a character which the brewer did not su[)ply to pul>
licans (o).

Compensation in respect of restrictive covenant. — Where a
licensed public-house is taken under the Lands Clauses Con-
solidation Act, 1845, the brewers are entitled, by virtue of
sect. 18 of that act, to compensation for the value
of the premises as increased * to them by such cov- [*673]
enant (jt)). Rut for rating purposes, the brewery on
the one hand and the licensed [)ublic-house on the other, are
to be valued and rated irrespective of any such covenant (^).

Sale of house held under restrictive covenant. — Where, in
the conditions of sale of a public-house, it was described as
a free public-house, and the lease contained a clause of this
nature, it was held, that the purchaser was not bound to
complete his purchase, and might recover back his deposit,
notwithstanding the lease was read over by the auctioneer
at the time of sale (r). Where the lessee of a public-house
covenanted, for himself and his assigns, with his lessors
(brewers) to take all his beer of them, or their successors in
their said trade, and the lessors sold their trade, and the
public-house, with other premises, to third persons, who
removed their business to a short distance ; it was held, that
the trade of the lessors was determined, and that their
assignee could not take advantajje of the covenant, on
the assignee of the lessee purchasing beer from another
brewer (s).

Where there was a lejise of limeworks, with a stipulation
that the lessor should furnish, and the lessee take, coals

(o) Edwick r. Ilawkes, L. R., 18 Guardians of Sunderland Union, resp.,

Ch. D. 199; 60 L. J., Ch. 577; 45 L. 18 C. B., N. S. 631 ; M L. J., C. P.

Online LibraryWilliam WoodfallWoodfall's Law of landlord and tenant (Volume 2) → online text (page 22 of 54)