Doe d Cheny v Batten
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 February 1775 |
| Date | 13 February 1775 |
| Year | 1775 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 98 E.R. 1066
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY AND COMMON PLEAS
Referred to, Evans v. Wyatt, 1880, 43 L. T. 177.
doe ex dim. cheny versus batten. Monday, Feb. 13th, 1775. The mere accept- -/ anca of rent by a landlord, for occupation subsequent to the time when the tenant ought to have quitted according to the notice given him for that purpose, is not of it-self a waiver on the part of the landlord of such notice but matter of evidence only to be left to the jury, under the circumstances of the case. [Referred to, Evans v. Wyatt, 1880, 43 L. T. 177.] This was an ejectment brought by the plaintiff, against the defendant, to recover some warehouses in London. The action was tried before Lord Mansfield, at the sittings in last term, at Guildhall. At the trial the case appeared to be shortly thus : The defendant was tenant at will to the lessor of the plaintiff, who, to determine the tenancy, gave notice at Lady-Day to the defendant to quit at Michaelmas. The defendant not quitting at Michaelmas, the plaintiff brought this ejectment, and laid the demise on the 30th of September: the defendant appeared, and pleaded. Sometime after the plea was put in, the lessor of the plaintiff received of the defendant a quarter's rent, due at Christmas. The defendant's counsel insisted that this subsequent acceptance of rent subsequently clue, was a waiver of the notice, [244] and tantamount to an agreement, that the defendant should continue tenant. His Lordahip said, he took the practice to be so ; though in his own opinion it was unreasonable. Bnt being settled, he directed the jury to find for the defendant, which they accordingly did. Afterwards in the same term Lord Mansfield said, he had turned the matter in his mind, and likewise mentioned it to the Judges, who doubted if the law was as he had directed. It was therefore proper the point should be settled, for which purpose his Lordship desired Mr. Dunning would move for a new trial. He accordingly did, and now in this term the case was argued by Mr. Mansfield and Mr. Bolton, for the defendant; and by Mr. Dunning and Mr. Davenport, for the plaintiff; when the Court gave judgment as follows : Lord Mansfield. This case has been extremely well argued on both sides. It was understood on all hands at the trial, that there had been a generally conceived notion and practice, that where a landlord receives rent for the occupation subsequent to the time when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ballard (Kent) Ltd v Oliver Ashworth (Holdings) Ltd
...time such tenant or tenants shall continue in possession as aforesaid." 30 In his first judgment the Judge considered the old case of Doe d Cheny v Batten (1775) 1 Cowp 243, and the recent discussion of it by Knox J in Dun & Bradstreet Software Services v Provident Mutual Life Assurance ( 2......
-
Faithful Croft against Benjamin Lumley, Lord Ward and sixteen Others
...elegit, as appears from Hughes v. Lumley (4 E. & B. 274). (Ha then argued as to the question of waiver, citing Doe dem. Cheny v. Batten (1 Cowp. 243), Webb v. Weatherby (1 New Ca. 502), Blyth v. Dennett (13 Com. B. 178), Doe dem. Bryan v. Bancks (4 B. & Aid. 401), Dumpor's case (I), Doe dem......
- Uzun v Ramadan and Another
- Dealex Properties Ltd v Brooks