Star.
London, England, 1830-12-22 00:00:00

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Dre. 20.
[London Sittings before Mr. Justice PATTIIIIOII and Special Juries.

SLAT El V. AVIROVISMITH.
This was an action brought to recover damages for breach of covi-
Dam. The defendant was In possession of some ground within a mile
of the Exchange at Manchester, which was well adapted fot the bleach-
ing business, and the plaintiff and he entered into an agreement, dated
the 15th of May, 1827, whereby the plaintiff was to have the place on
lease at a rent of 3001. per annum. The ground in question had been
let by the Earl of Derby for ninety-nine years to a person of the name
of Acres, and Acres agreed to assign the lease to the defendant on coo.
dition of his making certain improvements, and under that agreement
the defendant took possession ; and before the lease to himself was
executed, agreed to assign the lease to the plaintiff; at the rent men-
tioned, for seventy-seven years, which was the time which it then had
to run. The premises bad the advantage of a very valuable power of
water from the river Irwell, and some springs were discovered, which
added greatly to the value of the ground for bleaching. The defendant'
refused to perform his agreement, alleging that he himself had only an
equitable title. Acres had died, but his executor agreed to execute
the lease to the defendant on his making the improvements which he
had engaged for; but the defendant made no repairs, and did not put
himself in a situation to enable him to perform his agreement with the
plaintiff; although he had the power to do so; and it was contended for
the plaintiff, that under these circumstances the plaintiff was entitled to
recover by way of damages as much as the lease would have been worth
to him if it had beeu executed, and that was stated to be, at the lowest
estimation, 5,6001.
Mr J. SCABLETT, for the defendant, maintained that all the pWntil
was eat tied to was nominal damages, as be had an opportunity of still
enforcing the execution of the lease by proceedings in equity; and he
now offered to get his lease from the executor and execute the lease to
the plaintiff kmnallately, if the plaintiff himself would do the repairs at
the defendant's expense. This offer being rejected, Sir J. Bcarlett con-
tended, that no evidence of the value, as special damages, ought to be
received.

The Junes thought his best coulee would be to receive it, in the
meantime giving the defendant leave to move the Court to reduce the
verdict to nominal damages.
Menages were then called, one of whom stated the value of the lease
at 11,0001. another at 13,0001. and a third at 5,6001.
A witness was then called for the defendant, who stated, that in the
course of the last summer he was present at a conversation between the
plaintiff and the defendant ; the defendant said to the plaintiff that the
executor had agreed to give him this lease, that he had his materials
ready, and would begin the repairs immediately. The plaintiff re.
quested that the defendant would delay proceeding with the repairs for
some time, as he (the plaintiff) was not ready : what the plaintiff
meant that the witness did not know.
Mr. Justice PAT ISON stated, that at present he was of opinion
that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages to the amount of
the value of the lease, subject to the opinion of the Court as to whe-
ther the verdict should be reduced to nominal damages ; and after the
plaintiff should bare recovered damages in this action, whatever they
might ultimately be, he would have no.further remedy, either at law
or in equity.
The Jury retired, and, alter the lapse of half an hour, returned
with a verdict fee the pleintif—Dessoges, Two Thousend Six Hundred
and Eighteen Pounds.