HN10/271/Hammond41

Chancery Case 1881 H.No.1029 Hammond versus Ambrose brief for applicant and opinion of Counsel James E.Wood of 7 New square, Lincoln's Inn, London which was as follows: "I think the receipt not withstanding the saving clause in it is a waiver of forfeiture up to date. On the authority of Croft v.Lumley 5 E&B 648 and 2 Jn NS63 but I do not think it goes further. It shews that the money was paid and accepted as rent and therefore the lessor treated the lease as subsisting. This is all that Croft v.Lumley decided on the point. It does not however waive other claims in respect of breaches of covenant and there is no law preventing the lessor saving such other claims. The purchaser was entitled under the Contract to a clear receipt - this puts him on enquiry and he is entitled therefore to call for evidence that there has been in fact no breach"

5 Feb 1881

From: 1881 To: 1881

item

Hammond, Ann,
Ambrose, Alfred,
Wood, James E.,
Croft,
Lumley

legal correspondence, Chancery, Lambeth Belmore Street, Lambeth Milton Place