v. Lucas, i. 173 7. Newham, ii. 187 Willoughby . Brook, i. 237 v. Swinton, i.70; ii. 233, 542 Willows v. Lydcot, i. 172 . Sutherland, i. 267, 462 Wilmhurst r. Bowker, i. 493; ii. 94 v. Bank of Victoria, ii. 614 v. Braddyll, ii. 138, 140, 291 v. Butler, i. 578 v. Coupland, i. 224 v. Hart, ii. 459 . Hartley, i. 197 2. Hirst, ii. 823 r. Hobday, i. 2 v. Ingoldsby, ii. 302 v. Jeffery, i. 375 v. Reed, i. 144 r. Robinson, i. 323 . Sewell, i. 294 v. Smith, ii. 590, 613 2. Tucker, i. 246 2. Tummon, i. 359; ii. 125 v. Metcalf, i. 240 Withers v. Bircham, i. 162 r. Harris, ii. 13, 236 r. Parker, ii. 294, 342 Woadson . Nawton, ii. 99 Wogan . Somerville, i. 513 Wohlenburgh . Wageman, i. 591 Wollaston . Hakewell, i. 3, 127, 130 Wollen. Andrewes, i. 181 Wolveridge v. Steward, i. 306, 563 Wood and Chiver's case, i. 435, 436 - v. Brown, i. 311 v. Clark, ii. 676 v. Davies, ii. 267 v. Dunn, i. 379 v. Durrants, i. 19 v. Farr, i. 27 r. Finnis, i. 58; ii. 394 v. Harper, ii. 36 2. Hewett, ii. 654 v. Ingersole, ii. 773, 778 v. Leadbitter, ii. 363 v. Lovatt, i. 153 v. Manley, ii. 364 2. Peyton, ii. 617 v. Skelton, ii. 40 v. Thompson, i. 93 v. Veal, ii. 517, 521, 522 v. Waud, ii. 369, 370, 512 v. Wedgwood, i. 498 Woodcock v. Cole, i. 133 v. Morgan, i. 462 v. Worthington, i. 7 Woodford v. Deacon, i. 366 Woodgate v. Knatchbull, ii. 740 v. Ridout, i. 145 Woodland . Fuller, i. 257 . Darcey, ii. 235 17, 226, 239 Woodyeer v. Hadden, ii, 521, 522 Woolby. Pirley, i. 342 Wooldridge v. Boydell, ii. 570 Wooley . Idle, i. 522 Woolf . City Steamboat Company, i. 619 Woolly . Pickard, i. 299; ii. 62, 287- Woolton v. Salter, i. 628 Wooten v. Hele, i. 261 Wootley v. Gregory, i. 18, 292 Wootton. Stefenoni, i. 4, 166, 287 Worcester's case, Earl of, ii. 199 Worfield v. Worfield, ii. 127 Worral v. Brand, ii. 235 Worseley . Wood, i. 236 Worth v. Terrington, i. 11, 501 Worthington v. Gimson, ii. 809, 810 v. Grimsditch, ii. 185 Wortley v. Rayner, ii. 238 Wotton . Cooke, i. 162 v. Hele, i. 82, 83, 210, 242, 560; ii. 529 Woulfe v. Sholls, ii. 736 Wraight . Kitchingman, ii. 259 Wright v. Acres, ii. 434 v. Burroughes, i. 302, 452 v. Graham, i. 35, 594 v. Holford, i. 177 v. Lewis, i. 187 v. Maddocks, ii. 233 v. Mills, i. 259 v. Nutt, ii. 227, 247 v. Otway, ii. 78 v. Ramscot, i. 11; ii. 6 v. Rattray, i. 572 v. Read, i. 42 v. Russel, ii. 819, 820, 822 v. Treweeke, ii. 322 v. Wakeford, i. 424 2. Welbie, ii. 596 v. Williams, ii. 512, 515, 518 Wrightson v. Bywater, i. 34; ii. 410 ii. 678 v. Curnell, i. 37, 584 Yate . Willan, i. 45 Yates v. Bell, i. 225 - r. Hoppe, i. 224, 225 v. Tearle, i. 434 . Whyte, ii. 605 2. Windham, ii. 331 Year. Fouraker, ii. 180 r. Lethbridge, i. 198, 200 Yelding v. Fay, ii. 353 Yellowley. Gower, i. 574; ii. 646, 755 Yorkshire, West Riding . Rex, ii. 474 v. Beck, ii. 280, 281 r. Brompton Water Works Company, i. 198 v. Case, ii. 634 2. Miller, ii. 408 2. Moeller, ii. 343, 344 r. Munby, i. 240 v. Raincock, i. 83, 237; ii. 525 v. Roebuck, ii. 133 v. Spencer, ii. 650 v. Timmins, ii. 458 2. Turing, ii. 606 Zachary v. Shepherd, i. 590 JEVENS v. HARRIDGE. 1 Saunders' Reports, 6 [abridged]. Liability of Administrator of Lessee-Lease to Alien Artificer— Venue. DEBT in the debet and detinet against an administrator for rent arrear incurred for a messuage, with the appurtenances, in the time as well of the intestate as of the administrator (1). (1) So is Cro. Jac. 411. Bailiffs, &c., of Ipswich v. Martin. If the whole rent incurs in the life of the lessee, the action against his executor must be in the detinet only. 1 Roll. Abr. 603 (S), pl. 9. 1 Sid. 379, pl. 10. Fruen v. Porter. But for the rent incurred after the death of the lessee, the action may be brought either in the debet and detinet, if the executor enters; 5 Rep. 31. Hargrave's case, 1 Roll. Abr. 603 (S), pl. 10. Wentw. Ex. 194. Cro. Jac. 238. Lord Rich v. Frank. All. 34. Caly v. Joslin; for the executor is charged as assignee in respect of the perception of the profits, and it is not (a) See 8 Taunt. 191. Remnant v. Bremridge. 2 B. Moore, 94. S. C., in which it was held, that in an action of assumpsit for use and occupation against a person who was executor, the special matter may be given in evidence under the general issue. [If such VOL. 1. JEVENS v. HARRIDGE. material whether he has assets or not; 1 Lev. 127, 128. Helier v. Casebert. Freem. 171. Sackville v. Evans; therefore he cannot plead plene administravit; 1 Salk. 317. Buckley v. Pirk. All. 34; and if judgment be given against him, it is de bonis propriis. Went. 194. But if the land be of less value than the rent, he may plead the special matter, viz. -That he has no assets, and the land is of less value than the rent, and pray judgment whether he shall be charged otherwise than in the detinet only; 1 Salk. 297. Billinghurst v. Spearman, ibil. 317 (a). Or it may be in the detinet only; All. 42. Royston a special plea as above suggested be pleaded to the whole rent in the declaration, it will not be a good bar, unless it shews that there were no profits at all; because the executor is chargeable personally for so much of the rent as the premises are worth: if, JEVENS v. HARRIDGE. Liability of Administrator of Lessee. The defendants plead the stat. 32 H. 8. c. 16 (which makes void leases to alien artificers of dwelling-houses and shops), upon which plea the plaintiff demurred in law. therefore, the profits have been less than the rent, and therefore cover a part only, that part should be confessed, and the plea pleaded to the remainder. 4 B. & Adol. 241. Rubery v. Stevens. 1 Nev. & M. 182. S. C. See also 6 C. B. 744. Hopwood v. Whaley. Post Dean and Chapter of Bristol v. Guyse, n. (e). As to what shall be considered the real value of the premises, see 11 A. & E. 645. Hornidge v. Wilson. 3 Perr. & D. 641. S. C. Post, Dean and Chapter of Bristol v. Guyse, n. (e).] (b) So for rent arrear, partly in the lifetime of the lessee, and partly since his death, the action is well brought in the detinet only. Aylmer v. Hide, M. 13 Geo. 2. B. R. MS. cited in Selwyn's Ni. Pri. 596. In this case the plaintiff must sue the defendant in his representative character for the former part of his demand, and he may so sue him the rent, as far as he has assets. 1 Lev. 127. Helier v. Casebert (c). So in covenant for rent incurred after the death of the lessee, the lessor has his election to charge the executor, either as executor, in which case the judgment must be de bonis testatoris; 1 Salk. 317; or as assignee, if he enters(d), for the latter part; and wherever the defendant is sued in his representative character, the action must be in the detinet only. But it cannot be brought in the detinet for part and in the debet and detinet for the other part in the same action; for then two different judgments would be necessary. 3 Lev. 74. Salter v. Codbold. Where a plaintiff declares in the debet and detinet in a case which ought to be laid in the detinet only, the declaration is liable to be demurred to: but it is otherwise where the plaintiff declares in the detinet only in a case which might and strictly ought to be laid in the debet and detinet; for a party may abridge his demand, although he cannot extend it. 4 M. & S. 120. Wilson v. Hobday. (c) 1 Salk. 297. Billinghurst V. Spearman. S. P. Yelv. 103 Howse v. Webster. (d) [But even if he does not enter, he must not traverse that Liability of Administrator of Lessee. And the objection which was taken to the plea was that the defendants had not averred that the messuage demised was a dwelling-house; for the statute makes no lease void except of shops and dwelling-houses, and although this be termed a messuage in the lease, yet that does not shew that it was a dwelling-house; for in a præcipe quod reddat, a stable, or barn, or chapel may be demanded by the name of a messuage (1). And Twysden and Windham, Justices, were of opinion accordingly that the plea was bad. But Kelynge, C. J., held that the messuage shall be intended a dwelling house primâ facie, and that the plaintiff ought to have replied that it was not a dwelling-house. Martin, Justice, hesitated (2). It was further without naming him executor, stating generally in the declaration, that the estate of the lessee in the premises lawfully came to the defendant; in which case the judgment shall be de bonis propriis. 1 Ld. Raym. 553. Tilney v. Norris. S. C. 1 Salk. 309. 1 Salk. 309. Carth. 519. 1 Salk. 317. Buckley v. Pirk. See 10 East, 313. Wilson v. Wigg. 1 Wils. 4. Lyddall v. Dunlap (e). Post, Dean and Chapter of Bristol v. Guyse, n. (e). (1) [See 2 Bing. N. C. 617. Fenn v. Grafton, as to the legal import of the word "messuage." See also 4 M. & W. 567. Monks v. Dykes.] he is assignee; for, on that issue, the evidence that he is executor will prove the affirmative. 3 Scott, N. C. 593. Wollaston v. Hakewell. See post, Dean and Chapter of Bristol v. Guyse, n. (e).] (e) [Although, in respect of rent he personal liability of the executor does not exceed the value of the demised premises, yet it has been held that this qualifica JEVENS V. HARRIDGE. (2) The statute 32 H. 8, c. 16, is still in force, though it is in effect repealed or superseded by the stat. 7 & 8 Vict. c. 66. See infra, n. (f); but though it makes leases of dwelling-houses or shops granted to any stranger artificer void, yet if such artificer occupies a dwelling-house or shop under an agreement which does not amount to a lease, as if he be tenant from year to year, or for one year, or a shorter time, an action for use and occupation will lie against him notwithstanding the statute. 2 Show. 135. Pilkington v. Peach(f). And if an alien-amy occupies a |