Page images
PDF
EPUB

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW_See ExECUTION. | attorney for receiving rents, but which did not

give him authority to determine tenantcies. There

was also some evidence of a parol authority, by EJECTMENT-See Covenant. DEEDS. the landlord to the agent, to serve this notice. PLEADING.

Held, that the verdict for the plaintiff should not
be set aside. Lord Sligo v. Davitt, 3 Ir. L. Rep.

146, Q. B.
1. ON THE TITLE.
II. Non-PAYMENT OF RENT.

A lease for lives, commenced on the 29th of
September, 1811, expired 4th of March, 1835.

On the 20th of March following, the bailiffs of the I. ON THE TITLE.

landlord having taken possession, the defendants Amendment.]—See TITLE. AMENDMENT. were let back, on signing the following document Service.]— The court does not require the ser- land lately held by us under Mr. Cooper, and we

_“Sir,-Allow us back into the possession of the vice of a party resident out of the jurisdiction. will consider ourselves monthly tenants; and will Moore v. Ejector, 8 Ir. L. Rep. 3, Q. B. Service of an ejectment on the doctor and gover; getting one month’s notice, and that without litiga

yield up the possession of the aforesaid lands on nor of a Lunatic Asylum, will not be deemed good tion and trouble.”—March 20, 1835. The defendservice of a lunatic confined there, although he has ants continued to pay the same rent, and on the no known relations. Synge v. Ejector, Bl. D. & same days, as under the expired lease, until served 0. 101. Ex. The affidavit of the service of an ejectment on quit on the 25th of the following March, as on the

on the 8th of September, 1838, with notices to the title must be entitled strictly in accordance with the frame of the demises, as laid in the decla- day of the determination of the tenantcy. These tion. Lynch v. Ejector, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 240, Ex.

notices were signed by the land agent of the land

lord, who stated himself to be such. An ejectment If a party treat a married woman as a feme sole, had been brought, and was ready for trial at the by serving her with an ejectment, the court will Spring Assizes, 1840, but was not then tried. On not set aside a defence taken accordingly by her. the 23d of March, 1840, another notice to quit, on Doe v. O'Brien, 1 Ir. Jur. 128, Ex.

Service of an ejectment, nunc pro tunc, on the the 29th of the September following, was served provisional assignee of an insolvent debtor, will of the second notice was no waiver of the previous

on each of the defendants. Held, that the service not be permitted, where the ejectment has not notice. That the first notices were sufficient. That been served before the first day of term. Fordel the fact of the agent having signed the notices as v. Ejector, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 347, Ex. Service of an ejectment substituted on a co-trus- the said notices, established a sufficiency of autho

such, and of the ejectment having been brought on tee, the other being out of the jurisdiction. Ganority in him to serve the notices. Cooper v. Flynn, don v. Ejector, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 367, C. P.

3 İr. L. Rep. 472, C. P. In an action of ejectment on the title, this court does not require a party resident

out of the juris signed by his agent and receiver. Held, that the

Ejectment by the landlord, on a notice to quit, diction

, to be served. Lessee Moore v. Ejector, subsequent bringing of the ejectment was not suf8 Ir. L. Rep. 3, Q. B. Affidavit to ground a motion for deeming ser notice to quit. Prewen v. Ahern, 4 Ir. L. Rep.

ficient proof of the agent's authority to serve the vice of a summons in ejectment already had, good 181, Ex. service. Held insufficient, proper inquiries not

A mere receiver of rents, as such, has no authohaving been made for the defendant. Lessee Simp

rity to serve a notice to quit. Ib. son v. Ejector, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 44, Ex.

Where a notice to quit is given by a person who Notice to Quit.]—The notice to quit was served is described therein as acting under a power of by the receiver, appointed by the Court of Chan- attorney from another. Semble, that on the trial cery, in the matter of the lessor of the plaintiff, a of an ejectment, brought upon such notice to quit, (minor.) Held, that an attested, and compared the power of attorney must be produced and copy of the order, in the minor matter, referring it proved. Ib. to the master to approve of a proper person to be A tenant is precluded from disputing his own receiver, an attested and compared copy of the statement, with respect to the commencement of report, stating A. to be a proper person to be re his tenantcy. 16. ceiver, and an attested and compared copy of the An authority to serve a written notice to quit, order, requiring the tenants to pay their rents to is not sufficient to authorise the party to give a A, as such receiver were sufficient evidence of the parol notice to quit. Wood v. Ahern, 6 Ir. L, fact, that A. was the receiver, in the minor's mat Rep. 95, Ex. ter. Crosbie v. Barry, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 232, Ex. If the process server first read the original, and

Held, that it must be presumed that the receiver then the copy of the notice to quit. Held, to be a had authority to determine the tenantry, by the sufficient comparison, to make the service of such service of the notice to quit. Ib.

copy good service. 16. Semble, that such receiver was virtute officii, A receiver appointed by the Court of Chancery, authorised to serve this notice. Ib.

has authority, by virtue of his office, to determine Ejectment on a notice to quit, the notice was a tenantcy, by service of a notice to quit. Keating sigued by an agent of the landlord, without stating v. Cleary, 6 Ir. L. Rep. , Ex. that he signed as agent; the agent had a power of

Quære, if a subsequent recognition by the land.

lord, of the authority of an agent to serve a notice where the lands are situated. Jackson v. Lodge, 1 to quit, be in any case sufficient to make the notice Ir. L. Rep. 161, Q. B. good. Ib.

Such subsequent recognition should be before Lessor's Title]- Where in an ejectment on the ejectment brought. Semble, it should be six months title by the executor of a co-lessee in a lease for before the period limited by the notice for giving years, it appeared that the granting part of the lease up possession of the premises. 16.

gave separate portions at separate rents to the res. Where a bill and answer bave been put in evi. pective lessees, but the habendum and covenants in dence by the plaintiff, solely for the purpose of the lease were joint, and it further appeared that the shewing the pendency of a cause, and, to establish testator died, leaving the co-lessors surviving

, and the authority of the receiver, in that cause, to sigo his widow, who subsequently married the defend. a notice to quit. The contents of such bill and ant, and that the widow and the defendant continued answer cannot be given in evidence for the defend. since the death of the testator to pay rent, sometimes ant. Parsons v. Purcell, 1 Ir. Jur. 213, C. P. to the executors and sometimes to the head landSemble, that even were it otherwise, admissions lord, until the time of bringing the ejectment

; upon contained therein could not be made evidence of a the trial a verdict was had for the plaintiff subject written instrument not produced. Ib.

to three objections: first, that the lease was a sepa

. Trimleston v. Kemmis, 9 Cl. Fin., commented rate lease for the three tenants respectively

, and on. Ib.

could not be received in evidence, as it had but one Demise.] – The notice to quit required the de- stamp and ought to have had three; secondly, that fendant to quit upon Ist of November, or at the a joint lease, and the executors had no interest a

by being received in evidence it was established at end of the year of the tenantcy, which should ex- the co-lessees took by survivorship, or if the dead pire next, after the end of half a year, from the operated as a deed of partition as well as a lease it time of the service of the notice; and the demise required an agreement stamp; and thirdly

, that the laid in the ejectment was laid upon the 1st of November. Held, that the demise was laid a day too stituted a tenantcy from year to year. On motion

payments of rent by the defendant and his wife com. soon. Lynas v. Hamilton, 3 Ir. L. 304, Q. B. The demise stated that fifteen persons had jointly these grounds, Held, first, that the lease was a joint

to set aside the verdict and enter a non-suit upon and severally demised, and at the trial it appeared, lease ; secondly, that the lease required an agreethat the legal title, to the premises in question, ment-stamp; thirdly, that there was evidence to go was vested in but one of those persons. Held, to the jury of a tenantcy from year to year, and which that this demise was bad, not being consistent with the title proved. M Auley v. Molloy, 4 Ir. L. question ought properly to have been left to them; Rep. 360,'Q. B.

but as the result would be the same upon If a landlord recover in ejectment, his title has new trial the court refused to grant one, and made reference to the day of the demise, and the tenant 2 Ir. L. Rep. 186, Q. B.

the rule for a non-suit absolute. Kennedy v.Hayes, is a trespasser from that period. Nugent v. Phillips,

In ejectment on the title the plaintiff proved a 8 Ir. L. Rep. 17, Q. B.

lease of 1775, made by his grandfather, and receipt Venue.]—The ejectment was brought for lands from R. of rent reserved thereby for sone time prein one county, and after issue joined and before viously, and up to 1833, R. not being in possession trial, those lands were, by virtue of a statute, de or shewn to be connected with the lease of 1778

, clared to be within the boundaries of another county, otherwise than by payment of rent in amount the and at the trial a verdict was found for the plaintiff

, same as that reserved by the lease; he further prored Held, that a motion for a non-suit, on the ground that he was heir at law of the lessor, and that the that the court had no jurisdiction, could not be main- lease had expired; it also appeared that the defendtained, the parties having appeared, and tried the ant and some others were in possession for several issues. Heywood v. Reynolds, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 1, years, and bad not paid any rent to the lessor, but Q.B.

subsequently abandoned without any thing being Semble, the proper course would have been to levied under it, Held, that under such circumstances have put the question upon the record, and then a notice to quit or demand of possession was not moved in arrest of judgment. Ib.

necessary before bringing the ejectment. Bagwell Quære, is this a mistrial, and cured by the statute v. Boland, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 293, Q.B. 17 & 18 Car, 2, c. 12. Ib.

In 1768 a tenant demised for three lives in purIn an ejectment for recovery of premises situate suance of a supposed covenant for perpetual renewal in that part of a county at large, which has been by at £28, and his son who was tenant for life under a the provisions of the statute, 3 & 4 Vic. cc. 108 & settlement in 1806, and subsequently in 1820 on 109, included within the boundaries of a borough, each occasion of the falling of a life in the lease of which is a county in itself, the venue must be laid in 1768, demised by way of renewal in pursuance of the latter county. Evans v. Barber, 10 Ir. L. Rep, the supposed covenant and deed in 1838, when the 481, S. C. Bl. Ď. & 0. 59. Ex.

remainder-man, the lessor of the plaintiff

, entered The court will not change the venue in an action and continued to receive the rents till 1836, when of ejectment on the title, when there have been two on the death of the last cestui que vie in the original verdicts for the defendant in a previous ejectment lease he brought his ejectment after a demand of about the same lands, in which he was the lessor of possession, but without notice to quit, Held, that the plaintiff, upon the grounds of prejudices pre- the question of a tenantry from year to year was vailing in his favour amongst the jurors of the county properly left to the jury, and they having found in

170.

the afirmative that the verdict ought to stand. Bell extended all the lands, without a demand of posses. Nangle, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 296, Q. B.

. The lessor of the plaintiff gave in evidence a lease Quære, is a right of re-entry at common lawof certain ground, bearing date the 4th of May, 1825, necessary to entitle a landlord to maintain an containing a clause of forfeiture in case same was ejectment, under the ejectment statutes

. Delap v. not built on within four years, and proved the for- Leonard, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 473, Ex. Ch. feiture. The declaration in ejectment contained two In an ejectment on the title an agreement was demises one upon the 5th of May, 1829, and the given in evidence, whereby the defendant agreed other upon the 1st of January, 1841. Upon the to hold the premises for six years, which had

just trial it was objected by the defendant that 12 years expired when the ejectment was brought, and by having elapsed a notice to quit or a demand of pos- which he was to have the option of renewing for session was necessary to entitle the lessor to main six years longer, and was bound to give six months tain this action. Held that the lessor was not en- previous notice, if he intended to give up possession titled to bring this action without a demand of pos. at the termination of the first six years, which it session at least. Johnson v. Russell, 4 Ir. L. Rep. appeared he did not give. Held, that the defend

ant was not entitled to a notice to quit. Thompson The defendant was put in possession by a brother- v. Andrews, 1 Ir

. L. Rep. 285, Q. B. in-law of the lessor of the plaintiff, who lived in the A notice to quit was given by the mother of the same house with her, and tilled the lands, and the lessor of the plaintiff who was an infant, describing lessor of the plaintiff afterwards stated to the defend- herself as his guardian and next friend. She was ant, that “ as the lands were to be canted, she was neither a guardian appointed by the Court of glad that he had got them sooner than any other Chancery, nor a testamentory one. Held, that the person.” Held that the ejectment could not be infant could not give authority to her to act on his maintained without a previous demand of possession. behalf, and, therefore, that the notice was insuffiCashin v. Coady, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 298, C. P. cient to determine the tenantcy. Reade v. Ken

If a grantor in a fee-farm reserving rent, and a nedy, 1 Ir. Jur. 127, Q. B. right of re-entry to him, his heirs and assigns, assigns Property had been devised, previously to her marthe rent to a third party, the condition is extinguished, riage, to a wife, for her life to her separate use. and an ejectment cannot be maintained by the heir The marriage settlement did not affect the preof the grantor on an entry for condition broken. Orr mises in question, but contained a covenant, on the v. Stevenson, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 2, Ex. Ch.

husband's part, not to interfere with the manageA demand of rent on which to ground an eject- ment of the wife therein. The parties separated ment for condition broken at common law, must soon after the marriage. The defendant had never not be a demand of the whole arrear, but only a dealt with any other persons, in respect of the predemand of a single gale; the re-entry and demand mises, than the wife and her agent, and had paid must be made at a particular time, namely, thirty rent on the receipts of the wife. Held, that a nodays after the rent has fallen due. After that tice to quit, signed by the wife, and describing the period, the right of entry, which accrued due, by holding as under herself, was sufficient. Dankert the non-payment of the antecedent gales of rent, v. Wilson, I Ir. Jur. 141, Q. B. which now constitute the arrears, is gone, quvad Upon the expiration of a lease for lives, which those arrears, but it still exists, and is in force as contained the following covenant—" That the often as any gale falls due, and remains unpaid. lessor, his heirs, or assigns, upon the death or 16. 6, note. [Per Pennefather, B.]

demise of the before named four lives, or cestui que E. G. took an absolute estate, quasi in fee, with vies, should, and would add, and insert to the time, an executory devise over to his brothers and sisters, or term of that demise, the natural life of such in the event of his dying without issue, living at person, as should be nominated by the said lessee, the time of his death, and E. G. died without issue. bis heirs and assigns, in the place, and in the stead In an ejectment by the representatives of the per of the said four lives, during which the said estate sous entitled under the executory devise, against should be continued, in consideration that the said the alienee of E. G., after the death of the latter. lessee, his heirs and assigns, should lay out, and Held, that a demand of possession was not neces- expend in building a dwelling house, upon the said sary. Geary v. Synan, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 509, Ex. premises, the sum of £200, within the period of

A mortgage deed provided, that the mortgagees four years next ensuing. An ejectment was brought, should not be at liberty to take any proceedings and the judge directed a verdict for the plaintiff

, on foot of the mortgage debt, until they had given no evidence of the fulfilment of the condition twelve months notice. Held, that in an ejectment having been given, and no demand of possession brought by the mortgagees, and by the assignees proved; subsequently to the trial, evidence of a of the mortgagor, the absence of such notice could substituted contract, which was performed, was not be relied on by a third person, who insisted discovered. Held, that new trial should be on the title being vested in the assignees of the granted, for the purpose of submitting the new mortgagor. O'Brien v. Bernard, 6 Ir. L. Rep. evidence to the jury. Baker v. Harte, 1 Ir. Jur. 6, Q. B.

247, Ex. Held, that outstanding tenantcies vested in de.

Held, that if the original contract, or the substifendants who suffered judgment by default, are no tuted one, were performed by the defendant, the defence to an ejectment. Th.

lessor of the plaintiff could not sustain the ejectSemble, a mortgagee cannot eject an elegit cre- ment without a demand of possession. 16. ditor, who, under the 3 & 4 Vic. c. 105, s. 19, bas

Particulars of Demand.]-In an ejectment on the ejectment the defendant may file a second declaratitle, where the question was one of part and parcel, tion, and enter up judgment as in case of non-suit the court, upon the application of persons served without entering a rule for liberty to proceed of with the ejectment, who were at a loss to know the giving a term's notice. Kenny v. Coffey, 5 Ir. L. particulars of the land sought to be recovered, made Rep. 225, Q. B. an order restraining the lessor of the plaintiff from The lessor of the plaintiff served notice of trial proceeding in the ejectment, until he should furnish after defence taken; but before he had filed a second a bill of particulars, with a map annexed, and spe- declaration, the cause was held to be at issue by the cifying by metes and bounds the premises which he plaintiff's act in serving notice of trial, and after the sought to recover. Ross v. Ejector, 2 Ir. L. Rep. lapse of three terms from the service of the notice

, 25, Q. B.

the court gave liberty to file the second declaration, Defence.]—When separate defences are taken to and judginent thereon as in case of non-suit. Cremeh an ejectment on the title, the court will order them v. Creagh, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 528, Ex. to be consolidated upon terms. Gregory v. Archer,

Judgment.]— The defendant, after service of the 1 Ir. L. Rep. 97, Ex.

ejectment, but before defence, died ; judgment was When the premises sought to be recovered by an entered. The court refused to set aside this judg. ejectment are described in the declaration by one ment, and allow the widow of the deceased tenant name (A.), and the person in possession claims them to take defence before she had taken out adminis by another name (B.), the course for the person tration. Hastings v. Ejector, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 404, C. P. served is to take defence “for the lands of B. in the Habere.] - After verdict and before judgment the possession of the defendant, called in the

declaration lessor of the plaintiff died. Held, that the judgment in ejectinent the lands of A." Earl of Listowel v. entered and habere executed thereon on behalf of Ejector, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 313, Ex.

the persons in whom the title of the lessor of the A party cannot rule the lessor of the plaintiff to plaintiff was continued was not irregular, but that declare for lands in his possession until he has taken it should distinctly appear by affidavit that it was defence. 16.

executed on behalf of the persons representing the According to the practice in Ireland a party title of the lessor. Newton v. Byrne, 3 Ir. L. Rep. served with an ejectment, and who takes defence is 35, Ex. deemed to be in possession of the premises sought The execution of an habere will not be suspended to be recovered by the ejectment, and it is not ne- for the purpose of giving a party an opportunity of cessary to give at the trial evidence of his posses-filing a bill in a Court of Equity to sustain his rights, sion. Ib.

M Donald v. Lawton, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 303, C. P. A party whose interest has arisen subsequently

Points saved at the trial were ruled with the plainto the service of the ejectinent will not be permitted tiff, and execution stayed for a fortnight at the into take defence. M*Kiernan v. Shenkin, 4 Ir. L. stance of the defendant. But the court refused furRep. 180, Ex.

ther to enlarge the stay of execution for the purpose Where several parties have taken defence in an of enabling the defendant to file a bill in a Court of ejectment the court compelled them to consolidate Equity for an injunction to restrain the execution of their defences, and each of them to furnish the plain the habere. Loughnan v. Loughnen, 6 lt. L. Rep. tiff with a bill of particulars of the lands for which 27, Ex. he had severally taken defence. Boyle v. Ejector,

After an habere has been executed, returned and 4 Ir. L. Rep. 220, C. P.

filed, the court will vot in general grant a renewal In the absence of fraud the court will not, unless of it, and the party applying should come in at the in very strong cases, set aside a defence to an eject- earliest opportunity. Lady Sandford v. Ejector, ment on the title for matter arising subsequently to 6 Ir. L. Rep. 457, Q. B. defence taken. Drought v. Murphy, 5 Ir. L. Rep. On the death of the lessor of the plaintiff

, after 113, Ex.

the issuing, and before the execution of an habere, Lands were devised to an infant, who with his the court will grant a renewal of it. Lord Pexeersmother, continued in possession of the premises from court v. Ejector, 7 Ir. L. Rep. 196, Q. B. the time of the testator's death, and the trustees The court will not permit an habere to be renewed nominated in the will brought an ejectment against unless there be a fraudulent or forcible repossession the mother, laying demises in their own names and Rowley v. Ejector, Bl. D. & 0. 146, Ex. in that of the minor, the court, under the circum

Evidence.-A.the lessor, his title being admitted, stances, set aside the demise by the trustees in the minor's name, and gave him liberty to take de- proved a deed of 1792, whereby his father convered fence to the ejectment by his mother and guardian. certain lands, of which those in the ejectment formed Foley v. Foley, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 235, Ex.

a part, to a trustee, in trust for the lessor, and B. If two defendants appear by the same attorney

his brother, for life with cross-remainders. B. died the court will dispense with the usual affidavit that without issue in 1824, and receipt of rent by him up the plaintiff's title to the entire premises is the same. to that time from the defendant was proved. On French v. Cahill, Bl. D. & O. 241, Ex. [per Pen-peared that upon several occasions the defendant

cross-examination of one of plaintiff's witnesses it apnefather, B. Cham.]

shewed to the lessor an instrument under which he Judgment as in case of non-suit.]—If a party alleged he held the lands

, and which the lessor at allow a conditional order for judgment as in case all times alleged to be a forgery ; it also appeared of a non-suit to be made absolute, he cannot after that the lessor had in court that instrument, or some wards object to the proceeding for irregularity. In document connected with the defendant's title to

nd, which he said was greatly obliterated. A acting under a commission of bankruptcy no proof to quit on the 1st of May, or at the end of six of the petitioning creditor's debt, trading or banks from that day, had been personally served ruptcy shall be required at the trial, unless notice the defendant, and a demand of possession be given that the party intends to dispute some of upon the 2nd of May, upon which the eject- such matters.” Held, that this section is applicable was brought. The judge who tried the case to ejectments. O'Brien v. Bernard, 6 Ir. L. Rep. ed the jury, if they believed there was a lease 6, Q. B. er instrument in writing evidencing the tenant- Held, that where there are several lessors, they

find for the defendant, but if they should are not bound to give evidence of those distinct there was not, or that it was altered or oblite- matters without notice, and that, though but one of in a material part, to find for the plaintiff them be the assignee of the bankrupt. Ib. that this direction was erroneous, there being Held, that such lessor need not appear upon

the dence to warrant any question being left to record to be assignee, if, at the time of taking de. ry as to the existence of such instrument, or fence to the ejectment, the defendant kuew of the its obliteration or alteration if it did exist. proceedings in bankruptcy. Ib. v. M Carthy, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 157, Q. B. Held, that depositions by the defendant, in the upton, J. dubitante.]

bankruptcy, were admissible evidence of that fact. d, the facts proved a tenantcy from year to

16. and the receipt of the notice to quit by the Held, that proof of outstanding tenancies, vested lant without objection, although in the alter- in defendants who suffered judgment by default, are was evidence of the determination of the no defence to an ejectment.

1b. ry upon the 1st of May, in the absence of all

New Trial.]—Ejectment on the title. The issue ice on the part of the defendant

upon

either of points. 16

comprehended two questions, viz., a part and parcel jerson in possession of part of the lands sought

question, and of the existence of a cestui que vie, evicted is an incompetent witness for the de

and the attention of the judge was not directed to. at who had taken defence for all the lands in

the 7 Wm. 3, c. 8, and the jury found for the declaration inentioned, although such person had

fendant, without stating, or having been asked by served with the ejectment, and had not taken

counsel or judge on which of these grounds their e, and judgment had been marked against the Rep. 265, C. P.

verdict was founded. Coole v. O'Fullon, 3 Ir. L. | ejector. Purcell v. Donnelly, 6 Ir. L. Rep.

If a defendant have judgment of non-suit agaiust Ex. lessors of the plaintiff'having proved a lease, the him for non-appearance at the trial to confess lease, ent of rent under it to them by the defendauts, trial upon any terms, unless it clearly appear that

entry, and ouster, the court will not grant a new ced a deed made within twenty years of the ng of the ejectment, which recited, that A. being M Donald v. Lawton, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 303, C. P.

the defendant has a just legal defence to the action. in fee in the premises in question had conveyed ee by a former deed to B., the conveying party

Writ of Restitution.]-Seven persons applied lessors of the plaintiff in the deed produced, for a writ of restitution, on the ground that they s deed both A. and B. covenanted with the les- were dispossessed under an habere, and stated in f the plaintiff for quiet enjoyment. The lessors their affidavit that their holdings formed no part : plaintiff having given no further evidence of of the premises in the ejectment, and were not ormer deed of conveyance from A. to B. Held, pointed out to the view jury, who tried the case, as he defendants, setting up no title of their own, part of the premises sought to be recovered; and not rely on the recitals in the deed produced it was answered, that four of the tenants had since e lessors of the plaintiff, to show an outstand- accepted new agreements, and that the other three state in A. Maunsell v. Curry, 8 Ir. L. Rep. were not dispossessed. They not occupying any Ex.

part of the premises. The writ was refused. Wynne ild, that proof of the determined lease and of v. Swift, 2 Ir. L. Rep 159, Q. B. ayment of rent under it to the lessors of the A writ of restitution will not be granted to a tiff'is, until displaced, sufficient evidence of title tenant who has lain by for a period of eight months e reversion tu sustain the ejectment. Ib. after the execution of the habere, and permitted ne land agent of a landlord, under his directions, the landlord to repair, and re-let the premises, d a notice to quit, on which the ejectment was though the latter had obtained judgment on the ght The tenant at the trial produced a lease ejectment, upon entering into a consent to execute d by the agent, and under which the tenant had a lease for three lives of the premises in question tered as a freeholder, and the certificate of his to the tenant. Marlin v. Pierce, 9 Ir. L. Rep. try thereunder, kept in the landlord's office.

7, Ex. 1, that the tenant was bound to prove that the

Security for Costs.]-See Costs. it had a power of attorney to execute leases from andlord, and that such alleged adoption by the

Mesne Profits.]— See TRESPASS. lord did not dispense with the necessity of such f, and that the judge was right in refusing to EJECTMENT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF it the lease in evidence. Lord Gosford v. Robb,

RENT. . L. Rep. 217, Q. B.

Amendment.]-See AMENDMENT. "he 104th section of the 6th W.4, c.14.(Bankrupt- Service. ]-When a party cannot be served with Enacts, “that in actions by or against any person lihe summons in ejectment, the court, upon a pro

« EelmineJätka »