The Revised Reports; Being a Republication of Such Cases in the English Courts of Common Law and Equity

The Revised Reports; Being a Republication of Such Cases in the English Courts of Common Law and Equity : From the Year 1785, as Are Still of Practical Utility Volume 149

By (author) 

List price: US$20.76

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1917 edition. Excerpt: ...premises was conveyed to Hicks, in 1815, by the written agreement, and that interest must continue in him till terminated in the mode there pointed out, i.e. by six months' notice to quit; no such notice was given, therefore Hicks's interest must have continued up to the present time, unless he has duly surrendered his estate in the premises. By the Statute of Frauds, such a transfer of his interest to be valid must be in writing: Betting v. Martin, t and Mollett v. Brayne,1 are decisive that a tenancy from year to year, is not determined by a parol licence from the landlord to the tenant to quit, as well as that a parol assignment of a lease from year to year granted by parol is void under the Statute of Frauds. Hicks, therefore, did not duly surrender his interest; and that being a continuing term and never assigned, Hicks still continued tenant; and as between the parties to the suit, the legal relation of landlord and tenant never subsisted; and the effect of determining that the plaintiff may recover in this action, will be, that he has a double remedy for the rent, both against Hicks and the defendant. I think that there is sufficient evidence to entitle the plaintiff to recover: the defendant applies for leave to take the premises, and upon obtaining the landlord's consent, does take them, and agrees to stand in Hicks's shoes; and besides that, he 'offers to pay rent: this is more than suflicient to create a tenancy; and being once a tenant, it is not competent to him to dispute his landlord's title. I think that the defendant, by taking the premises of the plaintiff, and agreeing to stand in Hicks's shoes, became tenant, and that he cannot call in question his landlord's title to let. more

Product details

  • Paperback | 308 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 17mm | 553g
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236892852
  • 9781236892850