Crowley and Others v Vitty
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 January 1852 |
| Date | 29 January 1852 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 968
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
[3l9] ckowley and others vitty Jan 29, 1852-By a wntten agreement, the plaintiffs let to the defendant ceitarn premises at a rent of 20s a-week, payable as demanded, four weeks' notice to quit from any day to be sufficient During the continuance of this tenancy, the plaintiffs vei bally agreed with the defendant to accept 16s a-week, which was accordingly paid, and on two occasions, the defendant submitted to a distress for that amount -Held, that no new 7EX3ZO OROVVLEY V V1TTY 969 demise \vas theieby created, and consequently the county couit had no junsdic-tion ur iler the l^iJnd section of the 9 & 10 Vnt c 95, the lent being above 501 [S C 21 L J Kx l.-ij See SwZ Hartmt/ton v liaiiMti/, 183.5, 8 Kx 879 J Prentice moved foi a rule calling on the plaintiffs in the above cause, and the Judge of the County Court of Suiiey, to shew cause why a wnt of piohibition should not issue to restrain the ]udge of the said coutt from pioceeding in the above plamt It appeared from the affidavits that, on the 13th January, 1849, A H and S Ciowley (the plaintiffs), and J Vitty (the defendant), enteierl into an agreement in writing, whereby "the foimer agieed to let, and the lattet to take, the house and premises, 54 Lowei Maish, Lambeth, on the following terms and conditions viz tent at the rate of 20s pei week, payable as may be demanded by the said A H and S Crowley lAjui weeks' notice to quit fiom any day, and by either party, to be considered a legal and sufficient notice to quit, to be in wilting Possession is letpectivelj given and taken on the 15th January, 1849, horn which day rent is to commence" The defendant paid rent undei this agreement for some weeks, but, being unable to continue the payments, in Apid, 1849, it was verbally agieed between the plaintiffs and defendant that the lattei should hold the premises at the weekly icrital of IGs, whrch was subsequently paid; and on two several occasions the plaintiffs distrained for the same The defendant deposed that the annual \alue of the premises was 601 at the least On the 1st September, 1851, the defendant was served with rrotice to quit on the 29th , but not having done so, the plaintiffs entered a plarrit in the county court, under the 122nd section of the 9 & LO Vrct c 45 (a) It was objected that the Court had no jurisdiction, inasmuch [320] as the rent in the written agreement exceeded...
To continue reading
Request your trial