Hey v Moorhouse and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 November 1839 |
| Date | 09 November 1839 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 133 E.R. 20
IN THE COMMON PLEAS.
S. C. 8 Scott, 156; 9 L. J. C. P. 113.
[52] hey v. mookhouse and others. Nov. 9, 1839. [S. C. 8 Scott, 156; 9 L. J. C. P. 113.] 1. Where a tenant was to hold land according to certain rules in writing under which a former tenant held, but the length of his term was agreed on orally, Held, that to shew the expiration of the term it was not necessary to produce the rules :-2. That the lessor, having entered at the expiration of the term, might sue in trespass persons claiming under the late tenant as well as the late tenant himself : 3.-Issue having been taken as to the existence of an agreement between the lessor and the late tenant in satisfaction of all demands, Held that proof of the consideration of the agreement could not be required. This was an action of trespass for breaking and entering the Plaintiff's close, damaging the gates and fences, mowing the grass, corn and hay, and carrying them away. The Defendants pleaded first, Not guilty; 2. That the Plaintiff was not possessed at the time when &c.; 3. That the trespasses were committed by the Defendants jointly with one George Cooke, and that none of them were committed alone without the said George Cooke; that after the committing them, on the 24th of July 1838, certain disputes were pending between the said George Cooke and the Plaintiff, amongst other things, in respect of a certain farm then lately occupied under the Plaintiff; and also touching certain other claims of the Plaintiff against the said George 6 BING. (N. C.) S3. HEY V. MOOKHOUSE 21 Cooke, amongst other things, in respect of the causes of action in the declaration mentioned; that thereupon, on the day and year last aforesaid, it was agreed between the Plaintiff and the said George Cooke, that he, Cooke, should abandon, and that he did abandon his said claims and demands against the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff agreed to relinquish and did relinquish all claims against Cooke in respect of the causes of action in the declaration mentioned; and Cooke then entered into and made the said agreement with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff then accepted the said agreement in full satisfaction and discharge of all the trespasses and causes of [53] action in the declaration mentioned, and of all damages sustained by reason thereof. The Plaintiff joined issue on the first and second pleas; and replied to the third, that the said George Cooke did not enter into nor make the said agreement with the Plaintiff in the last plea mentioned, nor did the Plaintiff accept the said agreement therein mentioned in full satisfaction and discharge of the trespasses and causes of action in the declaration mentioned, and of the damages sustained by reason thereof. Whereupon issue was joined. The cause was tried at the last Lent assizes for Yorkshire before Parke B., when it was proved by the Plaintiff's agent that he let a farm to Cooke by parol, his holding to commence on the 2d of February 1836; and that he was to hold according to rules under which the former tenant held. The rules were hi writing, and were not produced, but the length of the term was agreed by parol. Cooke entered into possession on the 2d of February 1836 ; and he occupied no other farm under the Plaintiff but the farm in question, situated at Pudsey, Notice to quit the land on the 2d of February 1838, and the barns on the 1st of May,, was proved. On the 2d of February, the agent of the Plaintiff went on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patrick Nugent v Richard Phillips
...PATRICK NUGENT and RICHARD PHILLIPS. Lessee Dawson v. Coghlan Hayes, 509. Hodgson v. GascoineENR 5 B. & Al. 88. Hey v. MoorhouseENR 6 Bing. N. C. 52. Butcher v. ButcherENR 7 B. & C. 399. Turner v. MeymottENR 1 Bing. 158; see also Roll Abr. Trespass, T. 5. CASES AT LAW. 17 H. T. 1845. Queen'......