Mollett v Brayne
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1809 |
| Date | 01 January 1809 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1095
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Referred to, In re Bebington's Tenancy; Bebington v. Wildman, [1921] 1 Ch. 559.
[103] in the court of king's bench, at the sittings in and after easter tekm, in the forty-ninth year of george III., 1809. Second Sittings in Term at Westminster. mollett v brayne (A tenancy from year to year created by parol, is not determined by a parol licence from the landlord to the tenant to quit in the middle of a quarter, and the tenant's quitting the premises accordingly ) [Referred to, In re Bebington's Tenancy; Bebington v. Wildman, [1921] 1 Ch. 559.] Assumpsit for use and occupation. Plea, tender as to part, and non assumps^t as to the residue It appeared that the defendant took the premises in question of the plaintiff, at Lady-day, 1808, at the yearly rent of 42. In the November following, disputes arose between the parties as to the doing of some repairs The defendant then threatening to quit the premises, the plaintiff said, " You may quit when you please." The defendant accordingly left the premises a few days after, and tendered the plaintiff rent for a day beyond the time he had occupied them. This sum was paid into Court upon the tender [104] pleaded ; and the question now was whether the plaintiff was entitled to rent after the defendant had quitted ? Lord Ellenborough was of opinion that the tenancy was not determined merely by the landlord giving the tenant a parol licence to quit, and the tenant quitting accordingly. At that time there was a subsisting term in the premises , and the Statute of Frauds (29 Car. II. c. 3, s 3) provides, that no lease or term of years, or any uncertain interest of or in any messuages...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thursby and Others v Plant
...as a term for three years or less, or the tenancy be from year to year, still a surrender must be in writing, or by operation of law. 2 Camp. 103, Molktt v. Brayne. 5 Taunt. 519, Doe v. Bidaut. 2 Stark. 379, Thomson v. Wilson. The same law holds as to an assignment. 1 Camp. 318, Sotting v. ......
-
Ackland v Lutley
...If it is contended that Pring quitted the premises, before his tenancy expired, by licence from his landlord, Mollett v. Srayne (2 Camp. 103), shews that this would not amount to a surrender by operation of law. Crowder and Kinglake, contra. The tenancy began on March 25th, 1809, and, conse......
-
Lessee Delap v Leonard
...1 Ld. Ray. 369. Roper and wife V. Lloyd T. Jon. 148. Hunt V. Cope Cowp. 242. Botting V. MartinENR 1 Camp. 317. Mollett V. BrayneENR 2 Camp. 103. Roe V. Archbishop of YorkENR 6 East, 86. Doe dem. Spicer V. LeaENR 11 East, 311. Preston V. Merceau 2 W. Blac. 1249. Harvey V. Grabham 5 Ad. & EI.......
-
Dodd and Davies v Acklom
...point he renewed the objection taken at the trial, and cited Thomas v. Cook (2 B. & A. 119, 2 Stark. N. P. C. 408) Molktt v. Brayne (2 Campb. 103. S. C. 2 Mann. & Eyl. 439, n.), and Grimmam, v. Legge (8 B. & C. 324, 2 M. & B. 438). Talfourd Serjt. (with whom was Thomas) now shewed cause. Th......