Right on the demise of Flower against Darby and Bristow
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 May 1786 |
| Date | 09 May 1786 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 99 E.R. 1029
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Followed, Morgan v. Davies, 1878, 3 C. P. D. 263; Wilkinson v. Calvert, 1878, 3 C. P. D. 365; Barlow v. Teal, 1885, 15 Q. B. D. 405, 501. See Dougal v. Macarthy [1893], 1 Q. B. 739; Sidebotham v. Holland [1895], 1 Q. B. 384.
rk;ht on the demise of flower againsl darby and bristow. Tuesday, May 9th, 1786. In the case of a tenancy from year to year, there must be half a year's notice to quit, ending at the expiration of the year. [Followed, Morgan v. Dames, 1878, 3 C. P. D. 263; Wilkinson v. Culvert, 1878, 3 C. P. D. 365 ; Barlow v. Teal, 1885, 15 Q. B. D. 405, 501. See Dougal v. Maearthy [1893], 1 Q. B. 739; Sidebotham v. Holland [1895], 1 Q. B. 384.] Ejectment tried at the last assizes at Salisbury, before Hotham, Baron, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court of King's Bench on the following case : That the lessor of the plaintiff was seised in fee of the premises in question. That on the llth day of May 1781, the defendant Darby took the premises, which are a house in Salisbury, and occupied them as a public-house from that time under a parol demise at 101. per annum ; the rent to commence from Midsummer then next following. The defendant Darby let part of the premises to the defendant Bristow. That on the 26th March 1785, the defendant Darby was served with a notice to quit on the 29th of September following. [160] The question is, whether the lessor of the plaintiff is entitled to recover? Le Mesurier for the plaintiff. The question for the Court to decide is, whether the rule which requires that half a year's notice should be given to a tenant at will, before an ejectment can be brought, requires also that such notice should expire at the end of the year. Neither the case of Parker dem. Walker against Constable (a)2, and the cases there cited, nor any subsequent case, require the notice to expire at the end of the year ; but it is sufficient if notice be given for the space of half a year, without reference to any particular period of the term. In the case of Throgmorton dem. Wandby v. Whelpdak (b), it is'said that half a year's notice to quit to a tenant at will is as old as Henry the Eighth's time (c); but no mention is there made as to the time when the notice is to be given. But if the rule is to prevail in any instance, still there is a great difference between land and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duppa, Executor of Baskerville v Mayo
...M. & P. 391, S. C.] The notice must be to quit at the end of some current year of the tenancy, computed from the original time of entry ; 1 T. R. 159, Right v. Darby; although the rent be payable quarterly ; 1 Esp. 267, Shirley v. Newman ; or a quarter's notice be agreed on. 1 Taunt. 555, D......
- Landale v Menzies
-
Harvey, Appellant; Copeland, Respondent
...2 L. R. Ir. 365. Huffell's CaseENR 7 C. & P. 56. Jones v. Mills 10 C. B. (N.S.) 788. Beamish v. CoxUNK 16 L. R. Ir. 270. Right v. DarbyENR 1 T. R. 159. Doe d. Pitcher v. DonovanENR 1 Taunt. 555. Doe d. Robinson v. Dobell 1 Q. B. 806. Forgan v. BurkeUNK 12 Ir. C. L. R. 495. Clayton v. Blaykl......
- Ladies' Hosiery and Underwear Ltd v Parker