Doe d. Landsell v Gower
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 November 1851 |
| Date | 15 November 1851 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 117 E.R. 1406
QUEEN'S BENCH.
[589] doe, on the demises of LANSDELL and others, against gower. Saturday, November, 15th, 1851. Defendant in ejectment was let into possession of a cottage, parochial property, by the parish officers of P., whose successors were lessors of the plaintiff. An entry was on that occasion made in the vestry-book, as follows.-" We, the churchwardens and overseers of P., do hereby agree to let to J. B., of," &c., " the newly erected cottage," &c., " situate," &c., " at the rent (d) No fourth Judge was in Court. nq. b. aw. doe v. gowek 1407 of la. 6d. per week: and the said J. B. doth hereby agree to quit and give up the said cottage into the hands of the parish officers at any time on one month's notice from the churchwardens and overseers for the time being, or one of them, or by their order : " " the rent, as above stated, to commence from the date hereof. Witness," &c. Signed by defendant and an overseer.-Defendant occupied the premises for twenty years, paying no rent. He was then served with a notice to quit, signed by an overseer but by do churchwarden ; but he refused to give up the property, claiming it as his own. He continued to occupy for five years longer, and then sold the premises. There was evidence that his occupation, and the circumstances of it, were known to the successive parish officers during all the above period. Held :-That, if the parish officers, lessors of the plaintiff, were entitled to maintain the action, notice to quit was unnecessary, the defendant having disclaimed.-That the document above described was for a sufficiently determinate period to constitute a lease.-That such a lease, being for less than three years, might have been granted by the parish officers without writing, if all concurred.-But that the document in question did not appear to be a grant by all the parish officers, as the overseer did not profess to sign for all, nor did it appear, by the document itself or by extrinsic evidence, that all the officers concurred i consequently, that there was no valid lease under the powers given to parish officers by stat. 59 G. 3, c. 12, ss. 13, 17 :-And, therefore, that the defendant held without such lease in writing as is contemplated by the Limitation Act, 3 Si 4 W. 4, c. 27, s. 8, and the right of the lessors of the plaintiff to bring ejectment was barred by sects. 8 and 2. [S. C. 21 L. J. Q. B. 57; 16 Jur. 100.] Ejectment for messuages and land in the parish of Pembnry in Kent. Demise, May 17th, 1851, by Stephen Lansdell and Henry Jarman the churchwardens, and Evans Williams Morris and James Baldwin overseers of the poor, of the said parish. Further demises : by the same parties, mentioned by name only without any addition of office: by Morris and Baldwin, overseers : by the guardians of the poor of the Union of Tunbridge, Kent: by William Hartridge and Thomas Austen, churchwardens, and Benjamin Pawley an overseer of the poor, of Pembury: by the three last mentioned parties, without addition of office: by Benjamin Pawley and George Budgen : by Benjamin Pawley : and other demises by churchwardens and overseers of Pem-[590]-bury, with and without addition, which it is unnecessary to set forth. On the trial, before Jervis C.J., at the last Maidstone Summer Assizes, it appeared that the premises in question had lately been purchased by the defendant of one Joseph Boghurst. In 1823, Boghurst had been allowed by the officers of Pembury to take possession of a piece of land situate in the parish, and of a cottage, which they built upon the land for him. On his taking possession, he signed the following entry in a book belonging to the churchwardens and overseers of Pembury. Memorandum, Vestry Room, Feb. 27th, 1824. We, the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of Perabury in the county of Kent, do hereby agree to let to Joseph Boghurst, of the said parish, the newly erected cottage and premises, situate at Henard's Green in the said parish, at the rent of Is. 6d. per week : and the said Joseph Boghurst doth hereby agree to quit and give up the said cottage, &c. into the hands of the parish officers of the said parish at any time on one month's notice being given to that effect from the churchwardens arid overseers for the time being, or one of them, or by their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Long v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council
...in writing" the writing itself had to "pass an interest" and "operate as a lease" or "create an estate": see Doe d Landsell v GowerENR ((1851) 17 QB 589, 599, 600) and Moses v LovegroveELR ([1952] 2 QB 533, 536, 543). The next question was whether the tenancy document, given that it was cle......
-
Jacki Thomas Laughlin Mitchell v John Watkinson and Another
...to the 1980 Act was previously in section 8 of the Real Property Limitation Act 1833 and in section 9(2) of the Limitation Act 1939. Doe d. Lansdell v Gower (1851) 17 QB 589 considered section 8 of the 1833 Act and Moses v Lovegrove [1952] 2 QB 533 considered section 9(2) of the 1939 Act. B......
-
O'Reilly v Gleeson
...1 Man. & G. 135. 29 (1839) 9 Ad. & E. 879. 30 (1769) Bull N.P. 96. 31 (1793) Peske 259. 32 (1820) Gow 195. 33 (1841) 9 M. & W. 48. 34 (1851) 17 Q.B. 589 35 (1881) 16 Ch.D. 730. 36 (1830) 10 B. & C. 816. 37 (1832) 9 Bing. 356. 38 (1837) 1 Jur 794 39 (1824) 3 B. & C. 388. 40 [1956] 1 W.L.R. 1......