Turner v Meymott
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 February 1823 |
| Date | 07 February 1823 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 64
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 7 Moore, 574; 1 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 13.
[158] turner v. meymott. Feb. 7, 1823. [S. C. 7 Moore, 574; 1 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 13.] A tenant having omitted to deliver up possession when his term had expired after a regular notice to quit, the landlord, in his absence, broke open the door, and resumed possession ; though some articles of furniture remained.-The tenant having obtained a verdict against the landlord in trespass for this entry, the Court granted a new trial, holding that the landlord might so enter in such case. Trespass for breaking and entering Plaintiff's house. At the trial before the Lord Chief Baron, Guilford Summer assizes, 1822, it appeared that the Plaintiff had been tenant of the house to the Defendant, from week to week; that he had received a regular notice to quit, but omitted to deliver up possession, whereupon, the Defendant, at a time when nobody was in the house, broke open the door with a crow-bar, and other forcible applications, and resumed possession. Some little furniture waa still in the house. The Chief Baron having said that the law would not allow the 1BIN9.1B9. IN THE MATTER OF PAGE 65 Defendant thus forcibly to reinstate himself, tbe jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff, whereupon, Taddy Serjt, obtained a rule nisi for a new trial, and Pell Serjt. now (hewed cause against the rule. The question is, whether when a tenant refuses to deliver possession after a regular notice to quit, the landlord may make a forcible re-entry : but it cannot be permitted he should take the law into his awn hands, and do that by violence which is usually accomplished by an action of ejectment. It is contrary to the first principles, of law, that he should become judge in his own cause, and substitute his own strength for the ordinary civil process. If there had been resistance, and death had ensued, the crime of murder would have been committed; and it makes no difference that nobody was in the house, for the Defendant could not ascertain that till he entered, and the Plaintiff might have come up while the violence [159] was in progress. Some furniture being in the house, this was not a case of vacant possession. The statute of 11 G. 2, which gives the landlord double value where the tenant holds over, thews what is the appropriate remedy in such cases; but that statute would be useless, if the landlord might thus take the law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Underhill v Devereux
...There is no case in which a party may maintain ejectment in which he cannot enter." [See likewise 7 T. R. 431, 432, Taunton v. Coslar. 1 Bing. 158, Turner v. Meymott. 7 Moore, 574, S. C. 6 C. & P. 284, Hillary v. Gay. But see, also, 4 Bing. 100, Harris v. Booker, per Best C.J. 12 Moo. S. C.......
-
Ackland v Lutley
...any who wrongfully continued on the land : Butcher v. Butcher (7 B. & C. 399), Taunton v. Costaa- (7 T. E. 431), Turner v. Meymott (1 Bing. 158). If it be necessary to [887] contend that Pring's surrender to Braddick created a forfeiture, Doe dem. Ellerbroek v, Flynn {I Cro. M. & E. 138; 4 ......
-
Perry against Fitzhowe
...of the cases where a retaking without authority of law has been held justifiable was there a real forcible entry. In Turner v. Meymott (1 Bing. 158), the premises were locked up and empty, after expiration of a notice to.quit. On the other hand, in Hillary v. Gay (6 Car. & P. 284), where a ......
-
Davison against Wilson and Others
...(1 M. & G. 664), by Coltman J. (the dissentient Judge), and by counsel for the defendants, are not conclusive. In Turner v. Meyniott (1 Bing. 158; 7 B. Mooro, 574), wheio the landlord's entry was held justifiable, the house was empty. [Patteson J. Dallas C.J. there (7 B. Moore, 577), says g......