The memorandum on the back of the letter was read. 1832. DAGLEISH Verdict for the plaintiff. V. Dodd. Thesiger and Channell, for the plaintiff. Pollock and Steer, for the defendant. [Attornies-Brooks & Co., and Arnott & E.] AUWORTH V. JOHNSON and Another. May 14th. A tenant from year to year of a house is only it wind and covenants to repair, is to uphold the sustain and that is not so with a tenant from year to year. ASSUMPSIT. The first and second counts of the declaration were on a special agreement to occupy a house, on the terms contained in a certain lease of same house, which had been determined. The third count stated, that on &c., at &c., "in consideration that the said plaintiff, at the special instance and request of the said defendants, would permit and suffer the said defendants to occupy certain messuages and premises, as tenants to the said premises; but plaintiff, for a certain term, then and there agreed upon by the said plaintiff and the said defendants, at and for a certain yearly rent, the said defendants then and there undertook, and faithfully promised the said plaintiff, that they would perform all necessary and needful repairs on the said last-mentioned premises, and that they would keep and continue the same so repaired, in good and tenantable order and condition; and the said plaintiff in fact saith, that he, confiding in the said last-mentioned promise and undertaking of the said defendants, did permit and suffer them to occupy the said last-mentioned messuages and premises as such tenants as last aforesaid; Yet the said defendants, not regarding, &c., did not perform all necessary and needful repairs, but, on the contrary thereof, utterly neglected the same, and allowed the same 1832. AUWORTH บ. JOHNSON. to become ruinous, fallen down, prostrate, and decayed, for want of necessary and needful repairs; and permitted and suffered the same so to remain for a long space of time, to wit, from thence hitherto." The declaration also contained the money counts. Plea-General issue. No evidence was given to support the first and second counts, but evidence was given that the defendants were let into possession of the house by the plaintiff; that the stairs of the house were worn out; that new sashes were wanted; that the doors were rotten and falling to pieces from decay; that the sash lines, latches, catches, keys, and locks were broken and damaged; and that a panel of one of the doors was broken. Hutchinson, for the defendant. There is no evidence of the terms of any lease. Lord TENTERDEN, C. J.-No.-The case is, that, in consideration of the plaintiff letting the defendants into possession, they agreed to keep the place in tenantable repair. A tenant from year to year is to keep the premises in a little order, and they say that you have done nothing. - Hutchinson. They charge for doors and sashes which are worn out; that they hardly ought to do. Lord TENTERDEN, C. J.-Certainly not. For the defendants, evidence was given, that the house was situate in Pie-street, and that when the defendants took it, the condition of it was very bad. It was also proved that, in the year 1829, the defendants had employed a bricklayer and carpenter to repair it, and that they put it into as good a state of repair as it was capable of. Campbell, in reply.-I admit that the defendants are not liable for the substantial repairs; but still they have not done that which a tenant from year to year ought to do. The sash lines, the broken panel of the door, the latches, catches, locks, and keys, are all, clearly, things which a tenant from year to year ought to make good. Lord TENTERDEN, C. J. (in summing up).-It appears that this was a very dilapidated house, when the defendants took it, and that they have had a very considerable quantity of work done upon it. However, the first question is, what are the things which an occupier of a house from year to year, is bound to do. I am of opinion, that he is only bound to keep the house wind and water tight, and that that is all he is bound to do. A tenant who covenants to repair, is to sustain and uphold the premises, but that is not the case with a tenant from year to year. A great part of what was claimed by the plaintiff consists of new materials where the old were actually worn out; for that the defendants are clearly not liable: and if you think the defendants have done all that tenants from year to year ought to do, considering the state of the premises when they took them, the defendants are entitled to your verdict. 1832. AUWORTH ย. JOHNSON. Verdict for the defendants. Campbell and Kelly, for the plaintiff. Hutchinson and Channell, for the defendants. [Attornies-Garry, and Lowten & N.] In the case of Ferguson v. 2 Esp. N. P. C. 590.-Lord Kenyon said, "A tenant from year to year is bound to commit no waste, aud to make fair and tenantable repairs, such as putting in windows or doors which have been broken by him, so as to prevent waste and decay of the premises." In the case of Gibson v. Wells, 1 N. R. 290, which was an action on the case against a tenant at In the case of Baker v. Holt- 1832. AUWORTH V. JOHNSON. for use and occupation against the tenant, the rent accruing after the premises were burnt down, and no longer inhabited by the tenant. But it appears by the case of Horsefall v. Mather, Holt, N. P. C. 9, that the tenant would not be bound to rebuild or repair after a fire. In the cause of Powley v. Walker, 5 T. R. 373, it was held that the mere relation of landlord and tenant of a farm, is a sufficient consideration for the tenant's promise to manage the farm in a husbandlike manner. In the case of Legh v. Hewitt, 4 East, 160, the plaintiff succeeded in an implied assumpsit in the tenant to manage the farm according to the custom of the country. And in the case of Horsefall v. Mather, Gibbs, C. J., said, that a tenant from year to year "is bound to use the premises in a husbandlike manner, but is not liable to general repairs." 66 With respect to clerical dilapidations, in the case of Wise v. Metcalf, 10 B. & C. 229, the Court held that the incumbent of a rectory was bound to maintain the parsonage, and also the chancel, and to keep them in good and substantial repair; restoring and rebuilding when necessary, according to the original form, without addition or modern improvement; and that he was not bound to supply or maintain any thing in the nature of ornament, to which painting (unless necessary to preserve exposed timbers from decay), and white-washing, and papering belong." See also the case of Percival v. Blake, ante, Vol. 2, p. 514. June 20th. termini of the journey in de Adjourned Sittings at Westminster, after Trinity BECKFORD, Esq. v. CRUTWELL. In stating the ASSUMPSIT against defendant, as a common carrier from London to Bath, for not safely carrying and deliverclaring against ing a painting, of the value of 807., sent by his waggon from a carrier, the word London will be taken as a nomen collec tivum, including London to Bath. The plaintiff proved the delivery of the case conall that is com-taining the painting, at the Old White Horse Cellar, in monly so called, Piccadilly, in the county of Middlesex; and that twopence and not the city was paid for the booking, the book-keeper being told that merely. In an action against a carrier for the loss of a painting, it appeared that the stage waggon in which it was sent had seven horses, but that there was only one waggoner: the L. C. J. left it to the Jury to say, whether the sending but one waggoner was gross negligence; and they found that it was so. it was a painting, no extra carriage or insurance being paid. Campbell and Wyborn, for the defendant, objected, that, upon this evidence, the plaintiff should be nonsuited, as the termini of the journey were not properly described, the Old White Horse Cellar not being in London, but in another county; and they cited Tucker v. Cracklin (a), where, on a count stating a contract to carry from the Blue Boar in Whitechapel, in the county of Middlesex, it being proved that the Blue Boar was actually in the city of London and not in the county of Middlesex, although the whole neighbourhood commonly went by the name of Whitechapel, the plaintiff was nonsuited. Lord TENTERDEN, C. J.-The word London is nomen collectivum for this purpose, although some convictions against stage-coach proprietors have erroneously proceeded upon this supposed distinction. The defendants proved an express notice that they would not be liable for parcels above 57. value, unless entered as such, and paid for accordingly (b). But it was proved, (a) 2 Stark. 385. In the case of Ditcham v. Chivis, 1 M. & P. 735, which was an action on the case against a stage coach proprietor for an injury sustained by a passenger, the declaration alleged, that the defendant was the owner of a stage coach, for the conveyance of passengers from London to Blackheath, and that the plaintiff had agreed to become a passenger, and that the defendant had agreed to receive her as such passenger, to be carried from London to Blackheath; and the evidence was, that the words London and Blackheath were painted on the coach door; that the coach was licensed to run from (b) There has been a great altera- 1832. BECKFORD v. CRUTWELL. |