Doe, on the demise of Williams, against Humphreys
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 February 1802 |
| Date | 12 February 1802 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 360
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
360 DOE V. HUMPHREYS 2 EAST, 238. DOB, ON THE DEMISE OF williams, against humphreys. Friday, Feb. 12th, 1802. A landlord gave a notice to quit different parts of a farm at different times, which the tenant neglected to do in part, in consequence of which the landlord commenced an ejectment; and before the last period mentioned in the notice was expired, the landlord, fearing that the witness by whom he was to prove the notice would die, gave another notice to quit at the respective times in the following year, but continued to proceed with his ejectment; Held the second notice was no waver of the first. This was an ejectment, tried at the last Summer Assizes for Shrewsbury before Lawrence J. to recover possession of a farm in the parish of Nannerch in the county of Flint, which the, defendant held as tenant from year to year to the lessor of the plaintiff. The farm consisted of lands of different descriptions to be quitted at different times; the arable on the 29th of September 1800; the pasture and meadow on the 30th of November; the dwelling-house, &c. on the 1st of May 1801. The lessor, in order to determine the defendant's interest in. the pre-[238]-mises in question, served him on the 21st of March 1800 with a notice to quit the farm at the several times above stated; and the defendant not having quitted the arable on the 29th of September, nor the meadow and pasture on the 30th of November, the lessor brought his ejectment in the Court of Great-Sessions for the county of Flint against the defendant; pending which ejectment, he delivered to the defendant another notice (a),1 dated the 20th of March 1801, to quit the messuage and dwelling-house called, &c. which he then held under him, together with the lands, &c. thereunto belonging, to wit, the arable ron the 29th of September 1801, the meadow and pasture on the 30th of November, the dwelling-house, &e. on the 1st of May 1802. It was objected at the trial that the second notice was a waver of the first, being a recognition of the tenancy still subsisting. But the objection was over-ruled, and a verdict taken for the lessor of the plaintiff, with leave to' the defendant to move to enter a nonsuit;, or if the lessor were only entitled to recover part, to enter a verdict for such part. A rule nisi for that purpose was accordingly obtained in Michaelmas term last; against which, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duppa, Executor of Baskerville v Mayo
...execution. 8 Taunt. 538, Doe v. Darby. So a subsequent notice is a waiver; 16 East, 53, Doe v. Palmer; unless it expressly save the first; 2 East, 237, Williams v. Humphreys; or be given for greater caution, after ejectment brought for part of the premises, and such ejectment be persisted i......
-
Ryal against Rich
...(of. [54] There the landlord had received a quarter's rent, due after (a)1 Grose J. was absent. (a)2 Cowp. 243, and vide Doe v. Humphreys, 2 East, 237. 696 HENDY V. STBPHENSON 10 EAST, 55. the expiration of the notice to quit, and after ejectment brought; but still he proceeded with his eje......
-
Doe d Digby v Steel
...been so understood by the defendant himself. They cited the cases of Doe d Cheny v Batten, Cowp. 243, and Doe d. Williams v Humphreys, 2 East, 237 Lord Ellenborough observed, that it certainly appeared to him that the second notice was not intended, and could not be understood to be intende......
-
Doe, Lessee of Mary Brierly, against Sir Charles Palmer, Bart
...to be proved at the next trial, if he should be obliged to go to trial again; as that may (a) I Term Eep. 53; and see Doe v. Humphreys, 2 East, 237. 16 EAST, 58. MITCHELL V. STAVELEY 1011 be evidence that the defendant considered his right to the tithes as continuing after the expiration of......