Nuttall against Staunton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 April 1825 |
| Date | 19 April 1825 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 107 E.R. 978
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 6 D. & R. 155; 3 L. J. K. B. O. S. 135. Distinguished, Wilkinson v. Peel, [1895] 1 Q. B. 516.
[51] nuttall against staunton. Friday, April 19th, 1825. Where a tenant, by permission of the landlord, remained in possession of part of a farm after the expiration of the tenancy: Held, that the landlord might distrain on that part within six months after the expiration of the tenancy, the 8 Ann. c. 14, ss. 6 & 7 not being confined to a tortious holding over or to the holding of the whole farm. [S. C. 6 D. & R. 155 ; 3 L. J. K. B. O. S. 135. Distinguished, Wilkinson v. Peel, [1895] 1 Q. B. 516.] Replevin for goods taken in certain premises at Staunton Grange, December 30th, 1823. Avowry, that one J. S., for one year and a half next before and ending on the 29th of September 1823, held and enjoyed a certain farm, of which the premises mentioned in the declaration were part and parcel, as tenant to defendant, at the yearly rent of 5001., payable on the 29th of September and 25th of March, by equal portions ; and J. S. continued and was in possession of the said premises in which, &c., from the said 29th of September 1823, until and at the time when, &c.; and because 1501., parcel of the sum of 2501. of the rent aforesaid, for half a year, ending on the 29th of September 1823, was due and in arrear from J. S. to defendant, (the residue thereof having been paid,) and continued unpaid at the said time when, &c., defendant avowed taking the said goods in the said premises, in which, &c., at the said time when, &c., that being within the space of six calendar months next after the 29th of September 1823, and during the continuance of the title and interest of defendant in the said premises in which, &c. Second avowry, that J. S., for one year and a half next before and ending on the said 29th of September, and thence until and at the said time when, &c., held the said premises in which, &c., as tenant to defendant, by virtue of a certain demise to him J. S., theretofore made, at the yearly rent of 5001., and because 1501., parcel of 2501. of the rent .aforesaid, for half a year, ending as 4B.&C.52. : ; NUTTALL V. 8TAUNTON 979 aforesaid, on [52] the 29th,of September, and thence until and at the said time when, &c., was due and in arrear from J. S. to defendant, the residue having been paid, defendant avowed taking the goods in the said premises in which, &c., as a distress. Plaintiff pleaded several pleas in bar: on the first three, issues were taken. The fourth, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylerson against Peters and Another
...some remained. Will the Court say that, if he had merely withdrawn himself, the possession would not have continued 1 Nuttall v. Stauntm (4 B. & C. 51), shews that, to render the statute applicable, it is not necessary for the tenant to continue occupying the whole premises, or to hold them......
-
Bailey v Mason
...Lord Ashbrook v. Dowling Batty, 13. Lessee Dawson v. Coghlan Hayes, 509. Treston v. Handcock Smythe, Ir. Rep. 6. Nuttall v. StauntonENR 4 B. & C. 51. Bridges v. SmythENR 5 Bing. 410. 582 COMMON LAW REPORTS. T. T. 1852. CommonPleas. BAILEY v. MASON. April 27, June 1, 7. (Common Pleas.) Where......