HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0174 and id is 1 raw text is: BEALE V. THOMPSON
not from the making of the deed, and the reason which they give for the opinion is,
that every grant shall be expounded most favourably for the grantee, and if the
lease were to commence from the making of the deed, the lessee would only have four
years. It is true that Brown doubted upon this point, and that the Court of King's
Bench came to a different decision. But although the Court of King's Bench might
not think proper to go so far in favour of the lessee as the Court of Common Pleas
did, yet it does not follow that they were disposed to deny the rule of construing
leases favourably for the lessee ; for where two periods are mentioned in a deed, from
which the commencement of a lease is to take place, the legal construction is, that it
shall commence from which of the two periods shall first happen; and so it was
determined in Dyer, 312 b. in marg. This principle of exposition is sound ; but it is
not applicable to this case, which does not depend upon the priority of different
periods, but upon the question, in whom the option of deciding upon the alternative
is vested . The lease agreed for in the present case was seven, 14, or 21 years. An
option, therefore, was certainly intended. If then the principle be just, that a lease
is to be construed most favourably for the lessee, why are we to determine in this
instance that the option is in the lessor? If indeed a provision had been inserted that
the lease should be determinable at the option of either party, the lessor would have
been entitled to take advantage of it; but where no such proviso is inserted, the true
construction seems to be that the lessee is entitled, at his option, to take that term
which is most beneficial to himself. Notwithstanding, therefore, the opinions which
have been referred to (405] of Lord Kenyon, and Mr. Justice Buller, we think that
where no custom of the country exists upon the subject, the principle of construing
deeds between lessor and lessee requires us to hold, that where a grant is made in an
alternative which cannot be determined by extrinsic circumstances, the option is left
in the lessee. And we shall certify accordingly. There is a case of Keble v. Hall,
Litt. 363, 370, which bears very strongly upon this subject. In that case, a lease
having been granted to A. and B. for forty years if they and three others, or any of
them, should so long live; a second lease was granted habendum from the adminis-
tration (a), which should be in the year 1568, or from and after the surrender,
forfeiture, or other determination of the said lease to A. and B.; and some of the
persons for whose life the first lease was granted having survived the year 1568, a
question arose when the second lease ought to commence. The case indeed does not
appear by the report to have been finally determined, but the Court strongly inclined
to think the lessee should have his election, because that construction ought to be
adopted which is most favourable for lessees.
BEALE v. THOMPSON. May 23d, 1803.
[Reversed, 4 East, 546 ; 102 E. R. 940 (with note).]
Qu. whether the crews of the British ships detained in Russia under the orders of the
Russian Government in the year 1800 were entitled to wages for the time during
which the ships were so detained? Yes, 4 East, 552. Judgment in this case
reversed in B. R.*.
Assumpsit for wages due to the Plaintiff as a mariner on board the Isabella, on
a voyage from the port of London to Petersburgh, and from Petersburgh back to
London, at 51. per month. The declaration alleged the safe arrival of the Isabella
at Petersburgh, and her return from thence to London, during the whole of which
said voyage the Plaintiff continued and remained in and on board the said ship, in the
service of the said Defendant as such seaman and mariner as aforesaid. There were
also counts for wages as a seaman, on a quantum meruit, for money paid, laid out,
and expended, for money had and received, and on account stated.
The cause was tried before Lord Alvanley Ch. J. at the Westminster Sittings
after last Michaelmas term, when the following [406] special verdict was found. The
(a) This seems to be misprinted in Litt. for Annunciation.
* Vide Thompson v. Osborne, 2 Stark. Ni. Pri. 98. Thompson v. Roweroft, 4 East,
34, 47. Beale v. Thompson, Id. 546. Brown v. Milner, 7 Taunt. 319.
8 P OS. & PUL. 405.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0174&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)