John v Jenkins
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 149 E.R. 384
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 3 Tyr. 170; 2 L. J. Ex. 83.
john v, jenkins. Exch. of Pleas. 1832.-Landlord and tenant, between whom there was a subsisting tenancy, agreed in writing for a letting of the farm upon different terms, the amount of the rent to lie settled by valuation, and the tenant to find sureties for his paying the rent. The amount was not settled, and the sureties were not given :-Held, that the instrument, although it contained words of present demise, did not operate as a lease, or alter the terms of the existing tenancy.-A plea, to an avowry, of a tender of 161. will not be supported by proof of a tender of 151. 10s., although no more rent was due than the sum proved to have been tendered.-Semble, that it is a question for the jury, whether a removal was fraudulent within the statute 11 Geo. 2, c. 19, although it be admitted at the trial by the tenant that the removal was to avoid a distress. [S. C. .'iTyr. 170; 2 L. J. Ex. 8,'J.] Replevin. There were four counts in the declaration : the two first for a seizure on the demised premises, and the two last for a seizure oft' the land demised. The defei(daiit, as to the two first counts, avowed for rent in arrear, averring the demise to be^at the annual rent of 711. Ins. As to the two last, the defendant avowed, stating the same demise, and averring that the goods had been fraudulently removed from the demised premises to avoid a distress. [228] The plaintiff, to the avowries as to the two first counts, pleaded-First, Non tenuit;-Secondly, Eiens in arrere;-Thirdly, Eiens in arrere beyond 161., and a tender of that sum. And, to the avowries to the two last counts, he pleaded the same pleas ; and, also, traversed the fraudulent removal. At the trial, before Bollarid, R, at the Spring Assizes for the county of Carmarthen, it appeared, that, previous to an agreement, dated July 29th, 1829, the plaintiff had been tenant to the defendant, on the terms stated in the avowries. That agreement was in these terms :- " An agreement made between Esau Jenkins, of &c., and David Jones, of &c., about Llettyr Neuadrl farm, from year to year. He, the said Esau Jenkins, lets this farm to David Jones at the valuation of two disinterested persons to be chosen by 1C. &M.S29. JOHN V. JENKINS 385 each of them; and the said David .Tones, when leaving the said farm, is to leave the crop of the farm behind at the valuation of two persons, to be chosen by each of them. David Jones further agrees to give four loads of lime to every five Winchesters of barley he sows in every field he lays down. David Jones further agrees to leave the meadow land not laid down without the consent of the landlord. David Jones also agrees to keep the houses in repair, and to have timber towards that as long as they can be had on the farm. David Jones is to give two sureties to answer for the rant: and he also agrees to do nothing to injure Esau Jenkins as to his lease. The above valuation is to take place in determining the rent for 1829 and the time to come. " Signed in the presence of us, who have hereto...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Poole v Longuevill et Al
...removal was fraudulent within the statute, although it be admitted at the trial by the tenant that the removal was to avoid a distress. 1 Cr. & M. 227, John v. Jenkins. 3 Tyrw. 170, S. C. It is not, however, necessary for the landlord to prove that a distress was in progress, or 2 WM& SA0ND......
-
The Earl of Leitrim v Geelan
...Before FITZGERALD, DEASY, and DOWSE, BB. THE EARL OF LEITRIM and GEELAN. John v. JenkinsENR 1 C. & M. 227. Doe d. Phillip v. Benjamin 9 A. & E. 644. Warman v. FaithfullENR 5 B. & Ad. 1042. Poole v. BentleyENR 12 East, 168. Staniforth v. FoxENR 7 Bing. 590. Hull v. WoodENR 14 M. & W. 682. La......
-
White v M'Mahon
...Green v. Fidler Peake's Add. Cas. 33. Cattle v. GambleENR 5 Bing. N. C. 46. Lanyon v. MartinUNK 13 L. R. Ir. 297. Jones v. JenkinsENR 1 Cr. & M. 227. Wood v. Clark 7 Q. B. 211. Jaques v. Millar 6 Ch. Div. 153. Marshall v. Berridge 19 Ch. Div. 233. Wyse v. RussellUNK 11 L. R. Ir. 173. Phelan......
-
M'Creesh v M'Geough
...6 B. & C. 483. Knight v. BennettENR 11 Moore, 222. Edwards v. ReesENR 7 C. & P. 340. Tomlinson v. DayENR 5 Moore, 558. John v. JenkinsENR 1 Cr. & M. 227. Knight v. QuigleyENR 2 Camp. 505. Warre v. Burnside 1 Wils. 176. Turner v. BennettENRENR 9 M. & W. 646; 7 M. & W. 226. Harper v. Charlesw......