Messenger against Armstrong
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1785 |
| Date | 01 January 1785 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 99 E.R. 968
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
messenger against armstrong. 1785. If a landlord give notice to hia tenant to quit at the expiration of the lease, and the tenant hold over, the landlord is entitled to double rent. Action for double rent. The first count of the declaration stated that the plaintiff at Whitsuntide 1781, demised a certain messuage and tenement to the defendant for three jears, at the yearly rent of five guineas per annum. That the plaintiff, before the determination of the lease, gave the defendant notice to quit at Whitsuntide 1784 : that the defendant held over, and that double rent became due from Whitsuntide 1784, [54] The second count stated another notice, served on the 3d of June, (after the expiration of the first notice to quit at Whitsuntide,) to quit at the Martinmas following, or to pay double rent. On the trial before Mr. Justice Heath, at the last assizes at Carlisle, the defendant's counsel contended that the first notice was waved by the second : but the Judge thought that, as the double rent was incurred before the second notice, the plaintiff ought to recover. Verdict for the plaintiff for double rent from the expiration of the first notice. On a motion to set aside the verdict for a misdirection of the Judge ; Lee shewed cause against the rule, and insisted that the second notice was either void, or it was a ratification of the first. That the plaintiff, having a right to possess the premises at Whitsuntide 1784, might have brought an ejectment, or demanded double rent from that time; and that the subsequent notice, having been meant to confirm the first, ought not to be construed as an avoidance of the right which had once vested. Lambe, in support of the rule, observed that one of the points at the trial had been, that the defendant had taken these premises for twenty-one years, determinable at the end of three years (a), which so far altered the case, that it made a notice to quit absolutely necessary before an ejectment could be brought, or double rent accrue. That the first notice was only given two months before the expiration of the three years, and that even had been waved by the second. That there was a difference between the two notices ò the first was simply to quit, and the second was to quit, or to pay double rent, so that the plaintiff did not mean to receive double rent under the first: the second...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duppa, Executor of Baskerville v Mayo
...brought for part of the premises, and such ejectment be persisted in; S. C.; or be merely a notice that double value will be required. 1 T. R. 53, Messenger v. Armstrong. 3 Camp. 117, Doe v. Steel. Nor is a promise not to turn the tenant out till the estate is sold a waiver of a prior notic......
-
Crown Melbourne Ltd v Cosmopolitan Hotel (VIC) Pty Ltd and Another
...17.023–17.031; Attorney-General of Ontario v Mercer (1883) 8 App Cas 767 at 772. 231 See, eg, Messenger v Armstrong (1785) 1 Term Rep 53 [ 99 ER 968]; Cobb v Stokes (1807) 8 East 358 [ 103 ER 380]; Tayleur v Wildin (1868) LR 3 Ex 303 at 305 per Kelly CB (Martin and Bramwell BB agreeing at 3......
-
Shirley Apartments Ltd v Rogers et Al
...to quit would have been needed to terminate it. This was decided as long ago as 1785 when Lord Mansfield, C.J. in Messenger v. Armstrong 1 T.R. 53 stated at p.54 - “When a term is to end on a precise day, there is no occasion for a notice to quit, because both parties are apprized that unle......
-
Barton and Others v Cordy. [in the COURTS of EXCHEQUER and EXCHEQUER CHAMBER]
...left to the jury, whose finding would have'been conclusive. Do?, d. Cheney v. Batten (Cowp. 243. See G T. R. 219), Messenger v, Annstrony (1 T. R. 53). [Hullock, B., mentioned the case of floulslry v. Netting (9 East, 310).] But if the notice, under these circumstances, cannot but be holden......