Teasdale v Sanderson, 55 E.R.
476 (1864)
Teasdale v. Sanderson
Image 1 within document in PDF format.
Ct of Chancery
14 April 1864
(1864) 33 Beavan 534
55 E.R. 476
1864
Analysis
[534] April 14, 1864.
[See In re Leslie , 1883, 23 Ch. D. 564. Explained,
Farrington v. Forrester [1893], 2 Ch. 461.]
A. B., one of several tenants in common, had been in
the personal occupation of part of the property. In a suit
by another tenant in common for partition and an
account of rents: Held, that unless A. B. were charged
with an occupation rent, he could not be allowed for
substantial repairs and lasting improvements made by
him on any part of the property.
This suit was instituted by one of several tenants in
common, against the others, for a partition of the estate
End of Document
© 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
and for an account of the rents and profits received by
the Defendants, who had been in exclusive possession
for about fourteen years.
One of the Defendants was in personal occupation of
part of the premises, and had, as he alleged, expended a
sum of £60 in necessary repairs and improvements of
the property.
Mr. Baggallay and Mr. Rowcliffe, for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Speed, for the Defendant, resisted being charged
with an occupation rent for the part occupied by him,
for in Griffies v. Griffies (8 Law Times, 758) it was
held that, where one of the tenants in common is in
occupation of the estate, he cannot be made liable for
rent or waste.
He asked, at all events, to be allowed for the repairs
and lasting improvements on the part of the property
not occupied by him.
The Master of the Rolls [Sir John Romilly]. I think that
these accounts must be reciprocal, and, unless the
Defendant is charged with an occupation rent, he is not
entitled to any account of substantial repairs and lasting
improvements on any part of the property.
55 E.R. 476
© 2021 Thomson Reuters.
1