Doe, on the Demise of Goody, against Mary Carter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 January 1847 |
| Date | 14 January 1847 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 115 E.R. 1505
QUEEN'S BENCH
[863] doe, on the demise ob' goody, against maky carter. Thursday, January 14th, 1847. B. C., the purchaser of land, was let into possession before execution of a conveyance. He let in his son as tenant at will. The son occupied, (a)1 1 Cro. M. & E. 254; S. C. 4 Tyr. 863, On special demurrer. (i)' Gale, v. Capern, 1 A. & E. 102. After verdict. (fl) 4 A. & E. 489. On special demurrer. See Wise v. Hodsoll, 11 A. & E. 81G. (a)2 10 M. & W. 365. On special demurrer. (i)a Lord Denman C.J., Patteson and Williams Js. K. B. xliv.-48 1506 DOE V. CARTER 9 Q. B 864. and built a cottage on, the land. Afterwards R. C. took a conveyance from the vendor; and, some time after, he mortgaged the land. The son continued to occupy the premises in all respects as at first, till his death, which happened within twenty one years of his entry. The son's widow continued to occupy till the expiration of twenty-one years from her husband's entry. Held, that an action of ejectment afterwards brought against her was barred by stat. 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 27, ss. 2, 7. For that the tenancy at will was not determined by the father's taking a conveyance : and that, if it had, in point of law, been so determined by that event, or by the mortgage, a tenancy by sufferance must be deemed to have commenced from such determination, there being no evidence of a new tenancy at will: and the tenancy, altogether, had continued more than twenty years from the end of the first year. [S. C. 18 L. J. Q. B. 305; 11 Jur. 285. Referred to, Wimbledon and Putney Conservators v. Nicol 1894, 10 T. L. R. 2&i.l * *7 Ejectment for a cottage, garden, &c., in Essex. Demise, 8th January 1845. On the trial, Before Coleridge J., at the Essex Summer Assizes, 1845, it appeared that the defendant was the widow of John Carter, who died in 1834, being then occupier of the premises, which he had held, as after mentioned, for a period short of twenty-one years; and the defendant had occupied them ever since. The other material facts (as stated in the judgment of the Court delivered this day) were as follows. Robert Carter, the father of John, purchased the premises (amongst others) from one Havens, and was let into possession ; but, as he did not pay all the purchase money, no conveyance was executed till the 14th December 1824, some years after the purchase. In the meantime the father had let his son John, the husband of the defendant, into possession of part of the premises as tenant at will (a)1 without paying...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tenancies and Estoppel ‐ After Bruton v London& Quadrant Housing Trust
...interchangeable, helpful though it might be to assign tothem different meanings.3Blunden vBough (1632) Cro Car 302, Doe d. Goody vCarter (1847) 9 QB 863, 865.4Thunder d. Weaver vBelcher (1803) 3 East 449.5Universal Permanent Building Society vCooke [1952] Ch 95. When the purchaser completed......