Doe on the demise of Chadborn against Green
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 January 1839 |
| Date | 26 January 1839 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 1361
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 1 P. & D. 454; 2 W. W. & H. 122; 8 L. J. Q. B. 100.
[658] DOE ON THE DEMISE OF CHADBORN against green. Saturday, January 26th, 1839. Land was let for one year, and bo on from year to year, until the tenancy should be determined as was after mentioned, with a subsequent proviso, that three months should be sufficient notice to be given from either party, and another subsequent proviso, that it should be lawful for either party to determine the tenancy by giving three months' notice. Held, that the tenancy was not detertninable by three months' notice expiring before the end of the second year. [S. C. 1 P. & D. 454 ; 2 W. W. & H. 122 ; 8 L. J. Q. B. 100.] Ejectment for premises in Gloucestershire. On the trial before Parke B., at the Gloucestershire Spring Assizes, 1837, it appeared that the lessor of the plaintiff had demised the premises to the defendant by an instrument, dated 5th January 1836, purporting to be an agreement between the lessor of the plaintiff and the defendant, whereby the former agreed to let, and the latter to take, " for one year from the date hereof, and so on from year to year, until the tenancy hereby created shall be determined as after mentioned, a house," &c., at the yearly rent of 101., to be paid quarterly, the rent to commence from 5th January 1836, "and three months shall be sufficient notice to be given from either" of the parties. And it was further agreed "That it shall be lawful for the said Joshua Chadborn to determine the tenancy by either of us giving unto the other three months' notice of either of their intentions." The defendant took possession under this agreement on 5th January 1836. On 29th September 1836 the plaintiff served the defendant with notice to quit "on the 6th day of January now next ensuing, or whenever else your tenancy expires." The defendant's counsel contended that the lessor of the plaintiff could not determine the tenancy at the expiration of the first year : but the learned Judge, being of a different opinion, directed a verdict for the plaintiff. In Easter term, 1837, Talfourd Serjt. [659] obtained a rule nisi for a new trial on the ground of misdirection. (c) See Bead v. Cowmeadow, 6 A. & E. 661. Wedge v. Berkeley, 6 A. & E. 663. Wells v. Ody, 2 Cro. M. & E. 128. S. C. 5 Tyrwh. 725. 1362 DOE V. GREEN 9 AD. & E. 680. W. J, Alexander now shewed cause (a). This was a tenancy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leeds City Council v Broadley
...in this fashion, referred to in the footnotes to this paragraph of the textbook date back to 1605. 10 In Doe d. Chadbourn v Green (1839) 9 A & E 658 a tenancy for a "term of one year, from the date hereof, and so on from year to year" was said by Lord Denman CJ (for himself, Littledale, Wil......
-
Wright v Tracey
...FitzgibbonUNKIR I. R. 4 C. L. 500. Birch v. WrightENR 1 T. R. 378. Denn d. Jacklin v. CartwrightENR 4 East, 29. Doe d. Chadborn v. Green 9 A. & E. 658. Oxley v. JamesENR 13 M. & W. 209. Tayleur v. WildinELR L. R. 3 Ex. 303. Francomb, App., Freeman, RespondentENR 9 B. & S. 8. Gandy v. Jubber......
-
Salmon v Smith
...for rent upon a lease at will, the plaintiff must shew an occupation ; for the rent is only due in respect thereof. 1 Salk. 209.(e) (a) [9 A. & E. 658, Doe v. Green. 1 Perr. & D. 454, S. C. 1 Q. B. 247, Rj. v. Chawton (Inhab. of). 4 Perr. & D. 525, S. C.] See also 4 East, 29, Denn v. Cart- ......
-
Doe on the demise of Clarke against Smaridge
...Burbrick (1 Salk. 209, 1 Ld. Kaym. 170), Legg v. Stndvrick (2 Salk. 414), Birch v. Wright (1 T. K. 378, 380), Doe dem. Ohadborn v. Green (9 A. & E. 658), Hex v. Chawton (1 Q. B. 247), such express contract appeared either by the pleadings or the evidence. In this case there is no such expre......