Taylerson against Peters and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 June 1837 |
| Date | 01 June 1837 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 412
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 2 N. & P. 622; W. W. & D. 644; 1 Jur. 497.
taylerson against peters and another. Thursday, June 1st, 1837. Tenant of a farm, having remained a few days after the expiration of his term, and after entry by a new tenant, went away, leaving a cow and some pigs, but giving no further intimation of a purpose to return, or to continue holding any part of the farm : Held, that the landlord could not justify distraining the goods so left for arrears of rent, under stat. 8 Ami. c. 14, ss. 6, 7. [S. C. 2 N. & P. 622; W. W. & D. 644 ; 1 Jur. 497.] Trespass for seizing and taking away cattle, goods, and chattels, of the plaintiff. Plea, the general issue. On the trial before Lord Denman C.J., at the York Spring Assizes 1836, it appeared that the animals in question, a cow and some pigs, of the value, together, [111] of 171. 16s., were taken as a distress for rent due from the plaintiff for a farm and buildings. The plaintiff had duly received notice to quit on May 13th, 1835, when his time of holding expired. The distress was put in May 22d. Between May 13th and May 22d, the plaintiff, who still remained on the premises, was asked by Welford, the incoming tenant, whose term had commenced, when he meant to leave ; he replied that he did not know; but before the distress he went away, removing part of his property, but leaving the cow and pigs on the farm. He did not ask Welford's permission to leave them; nor did he, in going away, state any thing as to his intentions. No question was specifically left to the jury as to the giving up of possession by the plaintiff (a). The new tenant entered, but did not (6)1 See Parker v. Norton, 6 T. E. 695. (b)3 Williams J. was in the Bail Court. (a) The principal dispute in the case was on the authority of the parties who acted in making the distress. 7 AD. & B. 112. TAYLERSON V. PETERS 413 obtain complete possession before May 22(1. On that day, and before the distress was put in, he had possession of the whole farm, unless there was a continued possession by the plaintiff as after mentioned. A verdict was found for the defendant; but in the next terra a motion was made (by leave reserved) to enter a verdict for the plaintiff. The only point raised, on which the Court ultimately gave any decision, was, whether the distress, made after the expiration of the term as above stated, waa justified by stat. 8 Ann. c. 14, s. 6...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Poole v Longuevill et Al
...S. C. However, to make the statute applicable, there must be a keeping possession as the party's own, to the exclusion of other people. 7 A. & E. 110, Tayhrson v. Peters. 2 N. & P. 622, S. C.] () A landlord has no right to distrain unless there be an actual demise to the tenant at a fixed r......
-
Irish Land Commission v Murphy [High Court.; Supreme Court.]
...Ld. Raym. 482. (1) (1665) 1 Keb. 779. (2) 1 Taunt. 55. (3) 2 Jones 748. (4) 1 Keb. 785. (1) 1 Jones 139, at p. 150. (2) 2 Str. 1064. (3) 7 A. & E. 110. (4) 13 L. R. Ir. 71. (1) (1589) 1 Leon. 145. (2) (1700) 2 Lutw. 1483. (1) 24 I. L. T. R. 65. (2) Before Sullivan C.J. , Murnaghan , Meredit......