Lease determinable, &c.

no notice.

11th May, 1781, defendant took the house from that time under a parol demise at 101. per annum, the rent to commence at Midsummer following. The defendant Darby let part to the defendant Bristow; 26th March, 1785, the defendant Darby was served with notice to quit on the 29th of September following. Ejectment brought, and verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court.-Question, Whether the rule, which requires that half a year's notice should be given to a tenant at will before ejectment can be brought, requires also, that such notice should expire at the end of the year? Lord Mansfield-When a lease is determinable on a certain event, or at a particular period, no notice to quit is necessary: because both parties are equally apprised of the determination of the term. If there be a lease for a year, and by consent of both parties the tenant continue in possession afterwards, the law implies a tacit renovation of the contract. They are supposed to have renewed the old agreement, which was to hold for a year; but then it is necessary, for the sake of convenience, that if either party should be inclined to change his mind he should give the other half a year's notice before the expiration of the next or any following year. As to the case of lodgings, that depends on a particular contract, and is an exception to the general rule. The agreement may be for a month or less time, and there much shorter notice would be sufficient, where the tenant has held over the time agreed upon than in the other case. Mr. J. Buller-There should have been half a year's notice to quit before the end of the term. Right v. Darby, 1 Term Rep. 160. Judgment for On expiration defendant. Vide 2 Salk. 413. 13 H. 8. 15. b. Upon the expiration of a lease, if the landlord receive subsequent rent, the tenant is warranted in holding over, and becomes tenant from year to year, and is entitled to notice to quit.

of lease if landlord re,ceive subse quent rent.

Where a se

A landlord gave notice to quit different parts of a farm cond notice to at different times, which the tenant neglected to do in quit was no waiver of the part, in consequence of which the landlord commenced an ejectment; and before the last period mentioned in first notice. the notice was expired, the landlord fearing that the witness by whom he was to prove the notice would die, gave another notice to quit at the respective times in the following year, but continued to proceed with his ejectment. The court held the second notice was no waiver of the first. Doe v. Williams, 2 East, 237.

Lands held from Candle

The defendant held a farm as to arable lands from Can

day.

dlemas, as to the buildings and pastures from May-day, mas, residue the rent payable at Michaelmas and Lady-day, and notice from Mayto quit was given six months before May-day, but not six months before Candlemas. Lord Kenyon nonsuited plaintiff. East, 384. cited; he said, the notice must be given half a year before Candlemas.

Where an infant becomes entitled to the reversion of an Infant to give estate leased from year to year, he cannot eject the tenant notice. without giving the same notice as the original lessor must have given. 2 Term Rep. 159, Maddox v. White and others.

vant at the

came to the master.

On trial of ejectment before Heath, J. it was admitted, Notice dethat defendant was tenant from year to year to lessor, livered to serand the question was, whether he had been served with dwelling of due notice to quit? It appeared that the notice had tenant, and been served on his maid-servant at his house not situated explained at on the demised premises, and the contents explained to her the time, is at that time; but there was no evidence that it ever came good, without shewing it to defendant's hands, except as above. A nonsuit was entered, with leave to move to set it asside. Lord. Ken yon-This is different from the cases of personal process. If an ejectment be served on the wife in the house, it is sufficient. But in every case of the service of a notice, leaving it at the dwelling-house of the party has always been deemed sufficient. So wherever the legislature has enacted, that before a party shall be affected by any acts, notice shall be given to him, leaving that notice at his house is sufficient. So also in the case of an attorney's bill or notice of a declaration being filed; and indeed in some instances of process leaving it at the house is sufficient, as a subpoena or quo minus. In general the difference is between process to bring the party into contempt, and a notice of this kind; the former of which only need be personally served on him. Buller, J. Ex concessis, personal service is not necessary in all cases; it was proved that this notice was delivered to the tenant's servant at the dwelling-house of the tenant, and its contents were explained at the time: and that the servant, who was in the power of the defendant, was not called to prove that she did not communicate the notice to her master: this was ample evidence, on which the jury would have presumed that the notice reached the tenant. Rule abs. Jones dem. Griffiths v. March, 4 Term Rep. 464.

When the

If a landlord lease for seven years, by parol, and agree landlord canthat the tenant shall enter at Lady-day, and quit at Candle- not put an end mas, though the lease be void by the statute as to the to the tenancy

but by notice duration of the term, the tenant holds under the lease to quit. in other respects, and therefore the landlord can only put an end to the tenancy at Candlemas. Doe v. Bell, 5 Tem Rep. 471.

Notice served

on one of two

tenants under

A notice to quit served on one of two tenants who held under a joint demise, is evidence that the notice a joint demise. reached the other who lived elsewhere. Doe v. Watkins, 7 East, 552.

A landlord

about to sell

gave notice to

quit, but pro

mised if he did not sell, tenant should remain till he

sold.

Lease since

new style. Notice to quit at style bar.

If house and land let to

gether, to be entered upon at different times.

Receiver in

A landlord, about to sell, gave notice to quit on 12th Oct. 1806, but promised not to turn him out unless sold; and not being sold till Feb. 1807, tenant refused to deliver up possession: on ejectment brought, it was held that the promise which was performed was no waiver of the notice. Whiteacre dem. Boult v. Symons, 10 East, 13.

A lease of lands by deed since the new style, to hold from the feast of St. Michael, must be taken to mean from New Mich. and cannot be shewn by extrinsic evidence to refer to a holding from Old Mich.; and a notice to quit at Old Mich., though given half a year before New Mich. is bad. Doe d. Spicer v. Lea, 11 East, 312.

Where a house and land are let together to be entered upon at different times; and it do not appear from the terms of the demise, from what time, the whole is to be taken as let together; it is a question of fact for the jury, which is the principal, and which the accessorial subject of demise, in order for the judge to decide whe ther the notice to quit the whole were given in due time. Doe d. Heapy v. Howard, 11 East, 408.

A receiver appointed by the court of Chancery, with a Chancery may general authority to let the lands to tenants from year give notice to to year, has also authority to determine such tenancies, by a regular notice to quit. Doe d. Marsack v. Read, 12 East, 57.

quit.

Notice to quit at Michaelmas, served

personally, is prima facie evidence for jury to bind the tenancy.

Where tenant from year to year, underlet a part, and

A notice to quit at Mich. served personally on the tenant, who made no objection at the time, is prima facie evidence, from whence the jury may find the tenancy commenced at that period. Doe d. Clarges, v. Foster, 13 East, 405. It appeared that no question was asked of the witness whether he read the notice or not at the time. If he did not look at the notice, that would have rebutted the idea of his acquiescence as to the time stated for his quitting.

Where a tenant from year to year under-let part of the premises, and then gave up to his landlord the part remaining in his own possession; without either

receiving a regular notice to quit the whole, or giving then gave his notice to quit to his sub-lessee, or even surrendering part up to the landlord withthat part in the name of the whole (supposing that out a notice to any thing short of a regular notice to quit from the quit, or a nolandlord to his immediate tenant, would after such sub- tice to his subletting, have determined the tenancy in the whole;) lessee, or suryet the landlord cannot entitle himself to recover rendering that part in the against the sub-lessee (there being no privity of contract name of the between them) upon giving half a year's notice to quit whole, is not in his own name, and not in the name of the first lessee: entitled to refor as to the part so under-let the original tenancy still cover of the continued unde termined. Pleasant dem. Hayton v. Ben- half a year's son, 14 East, 234.

sublessee on

notice in his

Farm leased

years with a

Where a farm was leased for twenty-one years at own name. a rent of 1801. consisting, as described in the lease, for twenty-one of the Town Barton, and its several parcels, described for twenty-one by name at the rent of, &c. with a power reserv- covenant to ed to either party to determine the lease at the end determine at of fourteen years on giving two years previous notice; fourteen years, what notice is held, that a notice by the landlord to his tenant to quit, sufficient to "Town Barton, &c. agreeable to the terms of the cove- determine the "nant between us on the expiration of the fourteen years lease. "of your term," given in due time is sufficient. Doe d. Rodd v. Archer, 14 East, 245.

A notice to quit a part only of premises leased together To quit part is bad. ib.

bad.

termine at the end of seven

A proviso in a lease for twenty-one years, that if either Proviso to de of the parties shall be desirous to determine it in seven or fourteen years, it shall be lawful for either of them, or fourteen his executors or administrators, so to do upon twelve years on twelve months notice to either of them, his heirs, &c. extends, months notice, by reasonable intendment, to the devisee of the lessor, who was entitled to the rent and reversion. Roe dem. Bamford v. Hayley, 12 East, 464.

give such no tice.

If one be put

One who is put in possession upon an agreement for into possession the purchase of land, cannot be ousted by ejectment be- of land under fore his lawful possession is determined by demand of an agreement possession, or otherwise, and even considering such on the purlawful possession as a tenancy at will, the defendant's chase, he can confession (by entering into the common rule,) of a before his lawlease by the lessor to the nominal plaintiff, is not a con- ful possession structive determination of the will, whereon to main- is determined. tain the ejectment. Right dem. Lewis v. Beard, 13 East,

210.

not be ousted

For what it lies.

For what it does not lie.

For what an Ejectment lies.

Ejectment lies for a manor, messuage, so many acres of land, meadow, pasture, wood, &c. || Co. 55. So de una domo, 2 Cro. 654. de cotagio, Cro. Eliz. 818. de coquiná, Noy, 109. de stabulo, 1 Lev. 58. de romea, 3 Leo. 210. of the part of a house, if it appear what part, Str. 695. of part, as locum vocatum, a passage room, and ascertained in what part, Ld. Raym. 1470, of a close of pasture called five acres, containing five acres, Ibid. of tithes, and portione decimarum, Hard. 57. of pasture for one hundred sheep. Dal. 95. For common of pasture generally, if joined with lands, will be good after verdict Str. 54. Of a coal-mine. 2 Cro. 150. It lies by the owner of the soil for land, part of the highway. 1 Burr. 133. Land is a sufficient description, though part of a house is built by encroachment upon it, for plaintiff claims the land not the nuisance. Ibid. Of a kitchen, Noy, 109. a bed-chamber or lodging room, by the name of one room in such a house, in the middle story of the said house, 3 Lev. 210. of an apple-loft or store-house. Cro. Eliz. 854. Cro. Car. 614. 1 Lev. 58. By the owner of the soil, for land which is part of the king's highway, or of an acre of land, described only by the name of land, though there was a wall and porch, and part of a house built upon it. Goodtitle v. Alker, 1 Burr. 133. But it does not lie without shewing the quantity and quality of the land, and how many acres of land, meadow, and pasture, &c. 11 Co. 55. 1 Salk. 254. 4 Mod. 97. It does not lie de rivulo, or aquæ cursa; for it must be so many acres of land, aqua coopert. Yelv. 143. nor de pannagio. 1 Lev. 213. It does not lie for a messuage or tenement, 1 Ld. Ray. 191. 3 Mod. 228. 3 Wils. 23. nor for a messuage and two tenements, Doe v. Plowman, 1 East, 441. even after verdict, the case of Doe v. Denton, 1 Term Rep. 11. passed by surprise. An ejectment de uno tenemento will not lie. Str. 834.

If brought by one in forma pauperis.

Tenant by elegit.

If an ejectment be brought in formá pauperis, if there be vexatious delay, he may on motion be dispaupered. 6 East, 505. Doe v. Trussel.

A tenant by elegit, cannot maintain this action against the tenant in possession, who has a lease prior to his judgment. Doe v. Wharton, 2 Term Rep. 2.