Wheeler and Wife v Stevenson and Hagger
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 November 1860 |
| Date | 25 November 1860 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 158 E.R. 64
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 30 L J. Ex 46; 9 W. R. 233, 3 L. T. 702.
[155] wheeler and wife v. stevenson and hagger. Nov. 25, 1860.-In ejectment for a forfeiture, under the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, s. 210, it appeared that the plaintiff sought to recovei possession of two houses, numbered 13 and 14, which, in August, 1849. with two other houses, numbered 15 and 16, were demised by the plaintiff to L. for twenty-one years at an annual rent of 731. 10s payable quaiterly.-The lease contained the usual proviso for re-entry on nonpayment of rent. At Midsummer 1858, a year's rent was due, and in July, 1858, the houses, No. 15 and 16, were deserted and a police constable entered and for some time kept possession of them, but afterwards, by the direction of the plaintiff's agent, gave possession to T. to take care of them for the plaintiff , but upon a veibal undeistanding that if the plaintiff could get possession of No. 13 and 14, the four houses should be let to T. In December, 1859, a distress for 731., one year's rent, due Michaelmas 1858, was put in on No 13 and 14, which were then occupied by the defendants At that time the pioperty on the premises was only worth a few shillings, and there never was, up to the commencement of the action, a sufficient distress to satisfy the arrears of rent. No distress or search was made on No. 15 and 16 after T took possession, and it was uncertain whether, at the time of the service of the declaration, there were or were not goods on those premises sufficient in value, if distrainable, to satisfy the arrears of rent.-Held. First, that there was no evidence for the jury of an (d) Pollock, C. B., Bramwell, B., Channell, B., and Wilde, B. H4N156 WHEELER V STEVENSON 65 eviction by the plaintiff in lespect of the houses No. 15 and lb.-Secondly, that there was evidence of no sufficient distress, since the plum tiff wus not bound to shew that there were no goods of sufficient value in No. 15 and 16, inasmuch as the possession of T. must be considered as the plaintiff's, possession and, under the circumstances, justifiable [S. C. 30 L. J Ex 46, 9 W R. 233, 3 L. T 702.] Ejectment to iecover possession of two dwelling-houses, Nos. 13 and 14 Portsmouth Street, in the parish of St. Giles in the Fields. The defendant Stevenson did not appear to the wnt, and judgment was signed against him. The defendant Hagger defended...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mercer v O'Reilly
...Commissioners v. O'ConnorUNK 9 Ir. C. L. R. 242. Morrison v. Chadwick 7 Q. B. 266. Newton v. Allin 1 Q. B. 18. Wheeler v. StevensonENR 6 H. & N. 155. Grand Canal Co. v. Fitzsimons 1 Hud. & Bro. 449. Smith v. RaleighENR 3 Camp. 513. Stokes v. CooperENR 3 Camp. 514, n. Hilliard v. LeonardENR ......