Strickland v Maxwell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 149 E.R. 875
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 4 Tyr. 346; 3 L. J. Ex. 161.
2 C. &M.S39. STRICKLAND V.MAXWELL 875 [539] strickland v. maxwell. Exch. of Pleas. 1834.-An instrument of demise was produced in evidence, by which the plaintiff agreed to let &c. for the term of one year, fully to be complete and ended. Most of the subsequent stipulatioDs in the lease were wholly inapplicable to a tenancy for a year, and many of them appeared applicable only to a tenancy determinable by a notice to quit. The document appeared on the face of it to have originally contained words creating a tenancy from year to year, which were struck out, and the above words as to the term for one year only remained :-Held, that the words struck out might be looked at to shew what the intention of the parties was; that the tenancy was for a single year only; and that the terms inapplicable to such a tenancy must be considered as expunged, or as only applicable in case the tenancy should continue. By a clause in a lease, it was agreed, that, in case the tenant should duly observe and perform the several covenants and agreements, &c. (one being for the payment of rent), and should peaceably quit &c., on notice &c,, he should be entitled to a way-going crop to be taken from the lands specified &c., and the crop was to be left for the landlord or his incoming tenant at a valuation to be made &c. :-Held, that this clause did not give the tenant the right of possession as against the landlord, after the determination of the tenancy, but that the tenant at most could only go on the land for the purposes of a way going crop, and could uot exclude the landlord.-Quswe, whether the payment of the rent, and the performance of the other covenants, were a condition precedent to the having the right to the away-going crop? [S. C. 4 Tyr. 346; 3 L. J. Kx. 161.] Trespass for breaking and entering the plaintiff's house, stables, outbuildings, and closes, and breaking doors and gates fcc., seizing and taking possession of his crops, trampling corn and grass, prostrating hedges and fences, filling up ditches, and hindering the plaintiff from having the use and enjoyment of his farm. Second count, for an expulsion from certain closes (named &o.). Third count, for an expulsion from a dwelling-house, stabling, and out-buildings. Fourth count, de bonis asportatis. The defendants pleaded, first, not guilty, and certain special pleas, in which the defendant Maxwell, as sheriff' of the county of York, and the other defendant as his bailiff, justified the trespasses under an execution against three persons of the name of Smith, but as no question arose on the pleadings, they are omitted. At the trial, before Penman, Lord Chief Justice, at the York Summer Assizes, 1833, it appeared that the plaintiff was the landlord of a farm, which had been let to one Thomas Smith by an instrument of demise, dated the 4th day of November, 1831, whereby the plaintiff agreed to let to the said Thomas Smith the farm and premises from the 6th of April then next, for the term of one year, fully to be complete and ended, under certain rents payable by two equal half yearly portions, on the llth day of October and the 6th day of April in each year, and the said Thomas Smith agreed with the plaintiff [540] to pay the vents and taxes, to keep the premises in repair, not to plough up the grass land, and that he would not take more than two crops of any corn or grain successively from any part thereof, but would fallow as therein mentioned. Provided always, that, upon light lands, or such as were adapted to the turnip and seed husbandry, the said crops should not be taken in immediate succession to each other ; bub the said Thomas Smith, his executors or administrators, should, upon such lands, sow his or their first crop of corn after turnips with a sufficient quantity of good grass seeds, which might lie one, two, or three years, at his or their own discretion, if he or they should so continue to ocnipy the said farm and premises ; and in the said agreement was contained (amongst several other clauses, being those usually inserted in leases), the following clause as to quitting the said premises: And that the said Walter Strickland, his heirs or assigns, or his or their incoming tenant, at any time after the 1st day of .January preceding the Oth day of April, when the said Thomas Smith, his executors or administrators, should have given or received notice to quit the said farm and premises, should have full liberty to enter upon and to plough and cultivate all the arable land, except the fallows or turnip fallows of the preceding Summer, and should have the use of the stables of the said farm and premises, and should have liberty to sow with seeds, and harrow in the same, any part or parts of the fallow or turnip lands from which a way or off-going crop was to be taken as 876 STRICKLAND V. MAXWELL 2 C. & M. 541. thereinafter mentioned. There was also a clause that the tenant should be allowed the cost price of all seeds sown by him the preceding year, if not eaten by sheep or cattle; and, by another clause, the said Walter Strickland did agree, that in case the said Thomas Smith, his executors or administrators, should duly observe and perform thu several covenants and agreements thereinbefore contained on his and their part and behalf, [541] according to the true intent and meaning thereof, and also duly and peaceably quit the said farm and premises in pursuance of any such notice, as was thereinbefore mentioned, he or they should be entitled to a way-going crop, not exceeding GO acres, to be taken from such parts of the land in tillage, us should have been in seeds or turnips (eaten off with sheep) the preceding Summer, and if there should not at the time of quitting be so much land which had been so fallowed or turnip fallowed, then the deficiency should be taken from such of the lands then in seeds as should fall in due course to be then ploughed out; atid which way-going crop, it was thereby agreed between the parties thereto, should be left for the said Walter Strickland, his heirs of assigns, or the incoming tenant, at a valuation to be made by arbitrators or an umpire, in the manner therein mentioned, but subject to a deduction therefrom of ll. 8s. per acre for the onstand and taxes of the land on which it shall be grown, and also allowing for the expenses of reaping, thrashing, and delivering the saiq crop. The document when produced in evidence appeared to have been a printed blank form, and to have been filled up for use. The printed form was originally for a demise "for the term of one whole year fully to be complete and ended, and so on from year to year until" &c., but the words "and so on from year to year until" &c., appeared to have been struck out. In March 1833, the defendants (the sheriff of Yorkshire and one of his bailiffs) entered the demised premises under an execution at the suit of one Bainton ; and a few days...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peeters v Opie
...of rent was not a condition precedent to the performance of the covenant for quiet enjoyment." 5 B. & Ad. 584, Daiuson v. Dyer. (See 2 Cr. & M. 539, Strickland v. Maxwell.) Again, in a case where, by a Turnpike Act, trustees were authorized to enter upon and take certain lands, and to pull ......
-
Borrowes v Delaney
...v. CoppELR L. R. 4 Ex. 20. Thomas v. HaywardELR L. R. 4 Ex. 20. Bolton v. BarryUNK 12 L. R. Ir. 158, 164, 165. Strickland v. MaxwellENR 2 Cr. & M. 539. Spyve v. TophamENR 3 East. 115. Burchell v. Clark 2 C. P. Div. 88. Breslauer v. BarwickUNK 36 L. T. (N. S.) 52. Mostyn v. West Mostyn Coal ......
-
Booth v M'Manus
...Driscoll, resp. 5 Ir. Jur., N. S., 333. Comiskey v. Bourne 6 Ir. Jur., N. S., 109. Hare v. Celey Cro. Eliz. 143. Strickland v. MaxwellENR 2 Cr. & M. 539. Rex v. BramptonENR 4 T. R. 348. Rex v. RingwoodENR 1 M. & S. 381. Rex v. West CramoreENR 2 M. & S. 132. Comiskey v. Bourne 6 Ir. Jur., N.......