Doe on the demise of Taylor v Johnson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1816 |
| Date | 01 January 1816 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 513
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Same day. DOE ON THE DEMISE OF TAYLOR 'V. JOHNSON fA lease contains a proviso for re-entry, in case the rent shall be twenty-one days in arrear, and there shall be no sufficient distress on the premises , the landlord, who distrains before the expiration of the twenty-one days, but continues in possession of the distress upon the premises until after the expiration of twenty-one days, does not thereby waive his right of re-entry ) This was an action of ejectment brought on a clause of proviso for re-entry, in case the rent should be twenty-one days in arrear, and there should be no sufficient distress on the premises A distress was made on the 16th of October, and the landlord (the lessor of the plaintiff) continued in possession until the 2ist of October ; the forfeiture for non-payment accrued on the 20th of October, and the demise in the declaration was laid on the 28th. V. Lawes for the defendant contended, that the lessor of the plaintiff by contmu- * See Templer v. M'Laghlan, 2 N. R, 136 ; Gunter v Clayton, 2 Lev. 85 ; Johnson v Alston, 1 Campb. 176 ; Batkie v Chandless, 3 Campb 17 ; Cotnplon v, Chandlers, 3 Campb. 19. N. P. II-17 514 MARTIN V. BELL 1 STARE. 412. ing in possession of [412] the goods aiter the 2Uth, had thereby acknowledged an existing tenancy, and waived the forfeiture. Campbell for the plaintiff contended, that since there was no sufficient distress on the premises, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lessee Kingston v Kelly
...414. Doe dem. Wilson v. PhillipsENRENR 9 Moore, 46; S.C. 2 Bing. 13. Palk v. MarchettiENR 1 B. & Ad. 720. Doe dem. Taylor v. JohnstonENR 1 Stark. 411. Lessee Warrington v. Hodgens, Batt. 311. Lessee Cummins v. Chambers Hayes, 540. Hare v. CatorENR 2 Doug. 477. Lawrence v. ShawcrossENR 3 B. ......