Turner v Doe d. Bennett
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 February 1842 |
| Date | 21 February 1842 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 271
EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 11 L. J. Ex. 453; See 7 M. & W. 226; 151 E. R. 749(with note).
turner v. doe d. bennett. Exch. Chamb. Feb. 21, 1842.-A., in 1817, let B. into possession of a farm as tenant at will, and in 1827, A. entered upon the land without B.'s consent, and cut and carried away stone therefrom :-Held, on error 272 TURNER V. DOE 9M. &W. 644. in the Exchequer Chamber, that this entry amounted to a determination of the estate at will.-In 1829, B., being one of the assessors for the land-tax in the pirish, signed an assessment, in which he was named as the occupier of the farm, and A. as the proprietor:-Held, that this was evidence whence the jury might infer that a new tenancy at will had been created between the parties. [S. C. 11 L. J. Ex. 453. See 7 M. & W. 226; 151 E. R. 749 (with note).] In this case, a new trial having been granted on the ground of misdirection (see the case reported, 7 M. & W. 226), the cause was tried again before Gurney, B., at the Gloucestershire Spring Assizes, 1841. The facts proved were substantially the same as on the first trial; and the learned Judge, in accordance with the [644] law laid down by the Court of Exchequer, stated to the jury, in summing up, that the acts of the lessor of the plaintiff amounted to a determination of the defendant's original tenancy at will, and that it was for them to consider whether a new tenancy at will had been created by the parties; and that if they thought it had, they must find for the lessor of the plaintiff, because such tenancy at will would not be determined, under any construction of the stat. 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, ss. 2 & 7, until 1821, and this ejectment, having been commenced in Easter Term, 1840, would be within twenty years of the determination of such tenancy. To this direction the defendant's counsel tendered a bill of exceptions : and a verdict having been found for the plaintiff, a writ of error was brought, which was argued in this Court in last Michaelmas vacation,() by Kelly, for the plaintiff in error, and by the Solicitor-General, for the defendant in error. The arguments were in substance the same as those urged in the Court below. Cur. adv. vult. The judgment of the Court was now delivered by lord denman, C. J. In this case it appeared in evidence that the lessor of the plaintiff, being seised in fee of the farm in question under the will of his uncle, let the defendant into possession...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duppa, Executor of Baskerville v Mayo
...10 B. & C. 721. 2 C. M. & E. 120, Ball v. Cullimare. 2 A. & E. 329, Eoe v. Street. 4 Nov. & M. 42, S. C. 7 M. & W. 226, Doe v. Turner. 9 M. & W. 643, S. C. in Cam. Scacc. A tenant who continues to occupy after the expiration of his term ia a tenant at sufferance ; until he pays rent, and th......
- Landale v Menzies
-
Mercer v O'Reilly
...6 M. & W. 285. Cornill v. HudsonENR 8 El. & Bl. 437. Doe v. BramstonENR 3 Ad. & El. 63 Doe v. TurnerENRENR 7 M. & W. 226; S. C., 9 M. & W. 643. Wright v. HaleENR 6 H. & N. 227. Hudson v. NicholsonENR 5 M. & W. 437. Holmes v. WilsonENR 10 Ad. & El. 503. Gilman v. ShuterENR 2 Lev. 227. Ashbur......
-
Doe on the Demise of William Groves against Thomas Groves. [QUEENS BENCH]
...on an estate : only where he comes in such a manner that it would, if not excused, amount to a trespass; Turner v. Doe dem. Bennett (9 M. & W. 643). In this case, the twenty years began to run at all events in 1805, [491] when John Hart, according to the admission "left "the premises; which......