Stavely v. Uzzielli, 2 F. & F., 30-page 28 Sloper v. Saunders, 29 L.J. (N.S.), Ex., 275-76 Stockport Water Works Company v. Potter and Others, 31 L.J. (N.S.), Ex., 9-55 Stott v. Clegg, New Reports, Jan. 31, 1863, Weekly Reporter, Feb. 21, 1863-14 Swaisland v. Dearsley, 30 L.J. (N.S.), Ch. 653, 4 Law Reporter, 432 -100 Swinfen v. Bacon, 6 H. & N. 183 (in error) 846, 7 Jurist (in error) 897, 6 Jurist 1257, 30 L.J. (N.S.), Ex. 109 (in error), 5 Law Reporter 83, 3 Law Reporter 440-78 Symons [Symonds] v. Marine Society, 29 L.J. (N.S.), Ch. 623, 6 Jurist, 910-1 Ꭲ . Tappley v. Sheether, Weekly Reporter, Nov. 15, 1862-74 Taylor (Alice) (App.) v. Carr and Porter (Resps.), 31 L.J. (N.S.), M.C. 111, 2 B. & S., 335-32 Tildesley v. Clarkson, 31 L.J. (N.S.), Ch. 362–73 Trent v. Hunt, 9 Ex. 14, and 22 L.J. (N.S.), Ex., 318-78 Trimmer v. Walsh, Weekly Reporter, Nov. 29, 1862, 32 L.J. (N.S.), 20, Q.B.-67 Tucker v. Newman, 11 Ad. & E., 40-14 Turner v. Barnes and Others, 31 L J. (N.S.), 170 Q.B.-41 v. Hutchinson, 2 F. & F., 185-75 Spooner, 30 L.J. (N.S.), Ch., 801-5 v. Wright, 29 L.J. (N.S.), Ch. 470, 598, 6 Jurist 647, 800, 2 Law Reporter 277, 649-17 Tutton v. Darke, 29 L.J. (N.S.), Ex. 271, 5 H. & N. 647, 6 Jurist 983, 2 Law Reporter, 361-40 V. Vaughan v. Taff Vale Railway Company, 5 H. & N. 679, 6 Jurist 899, 2 Law Reporter, 394-53 Vidler (ex parte) re Terry, Weekly Reporter, Dec. 13, 1862-98 W. Wallis v. Littell, 31 L.J. (N.S.), C.P., 100—74 Wanstead Local Board of Health (App.) v. Hill (Resp.), New Reports Jan. 23, 1863, Weekly Reporter, Feb. 21, 1863-55 Walmsley v. Milne, 29 L.J. (N.S.), C.P. 97, 7 C.B., 893-page 77 Watkins v. Reddin, 2 F. & F., 629-54 Watts v. Ainsworth, 31 L.J. (N.S.), Ex. 448, 3 F. & F. 12, 6 Law Reporter, 252-96 Webb v. Bird, 30 L.J. (N.S,), C.P. 384, 31 L.J. (N.S.), (in error), C.P. 335, 10 C.B. 268, Jurist, July 12, 1862-4 Wellington's (Duke of) Settled Estates Act (In re), 30 L.J. (N.S.), Ch., 187-27 Wheeler (App.) v. Overseers of Burmington (Resps.), 31 L.J. (N.S.), M C., 57-70 White v. Leeson, 29 L.J. (N.S.), Ex. 105, 5 H. & N., 53-12 Whitty v. Lord Dillon, 2 F. & F., 67—16 Wilden v. Stanley (Veterinarian, June, 1860)—106 Willett (App.) v. Boote, 30 L.J. (N.S.), M.C., 6—31 Williams (App.) v. Adams, 31 L.J. (N.S.), M.C., 109–10 v. Eyton, 27 L.J. (N.S.), Ex. 176, 28 L.J. (N.S), Ex. 146, 5 Jurist, 770-12 (App.) v. Overseers of Langeinwen (Resps.), 31 L.J. (N.S.), M.C., 54-69 Williamson v. Barton, 31 L.J. (N.S.), Ex., 176, 7 H. & N., 899-100 Wilson v. Stevens, M.S.S.-103 Wintringham (Tithes) (In re), ex parte Lord Carrington, 31 L.J. (N.S.), C.P., 274-68 Wood v. Hewitt, 8 Q.B. 913, 15 L.J. (N.S.), Q.B., 247—77 Wood (Edwards) v. Marjoribanks and Others, 30 L.J. (N.S.), Ch., 176 -99 Worthington v. Gimson, 26 L.J. (N.S.), Ex. 258, 29 L.J. (N.S.), Q.B. 116, 6 Jurist 1053, 2 Law Reporter, 320—13 Wright v. Stavert, 29 L.J. (N.S.), Q,B. 161, 6 Jurist, 867—2 Y. Yates v. Routledge, 29 L.J. (N.S.), Ex. 117, 5. H. & N., 249-77 Young v. Davis, 31 L.J. (N.S.), Ex. 250, 7 H. & N. 760, 6 Law Reporter, THE LAW OF THE FARM. APPENDIX (A) OF CASES CHIEFLY DECIDED FROM EASTER TERM, 1859, TO THE END OF HILARY TERM, 1863. Payment of legacies out of sale of growing crops.-Growing crops are an interest in land within the statute of mortmain (13 & 14 Vic., c. 94), And per Stuart V.C.: "If growing crops pass under a devise of land, how is it possible to say that the legacies which the testator has given to these charities would be paid out of monies arising from the sale of pure personalty, if they were paid out of the sale of growing crops?" (Symons v. Marine Society). 66 Easement of grass for a cow" creates no interest in land.—A gift by will, dated in 1838, to J. M." of the house she lives in, and grass for a cow in G field," part of another estate, passes an estate in fee in the house, but does not create a permanent interest in the land of the other estate. B 2 And Sir J. Romilly M.R.: "The grass for a cow was not necessary per for the enjoyment of the house; it passed no interest in the land, but merely gave a personal right to Jane Malcolmson by way of easement to pasture a cow on a field given absolutely to another, as long as she thought fit" (Reay v. Rawlinson). Indivisible contract for interest in land.-In Hodgson v. Johnson (Jurist, April 2, 1859) plaintiff and defendant agreed by word of mouth that plaintiff should become a tenant in his stead, of a brick yard, and take the plant upon a valuation, and that defendant should settle with the landlord for the rent due, and for plaintiff becoming tenant upon the same terms as he held the premises. Plaintiff having entered into occupation, and worked the ground, a distress was put in for rent due from defendant to the landlord; and in an action to recover damages for breach of defendant's promise to pay the rent, it was held by the Court of Queen's Bench that the promise in respect of which the plaintiff sued was part of an indivisible contract for an interest in land within sec. 4 of stat. 29 Car. II. c. 3, and that therefore plaintiff could not recover. And per Campbell C.J.: "The principle of the decision in Green v. Saddington [see Law of the Farm, p. 51] is, that not that there there were in that case two separable contracts was one contract which might be split in two, and that a new considerAnd ation was constituted on the part performance of the contract." per Crompton J.: "I entertain a strong opinion upon Green v. Saddington, where it was thought by the majority of the Court that the contract being executed as far as regarded the land, and the promise sued on relating wholly to money, the plaintiff might recover. That decision can only be defended on the ground that there were two contracts. In this case it is clear that there is only one, and one part of it cannot be severed from the other." دو Contract by parol to live at a boarding-house.-Where the defendant agreed by parol with plaintiff, who kept a boarding-house, to pay for the board and lodging of himself and servant, and accommodation for a horse, £200 a year from a given day, terminable by either party at a quarter's notice-this was held not to be a contract in or concerning land within the Statute of Frauds, and plaintiff could maintain an action for the breach of it. And per Blackburn J.: " In Inman v. Stamp, (1 Stark, N. P. 12), and Edge v. Strafford, (1 C. and J., 391), there would have been an actual demise, had the contract been executed giving such a right. In the present case, there was no contract that defendant should become tenant or occupier of any specific room, and therefore there was no intention to pass any interest in that room" (Wright v. Stavert). Right of mortgagee of tenant's fixtures to enter and sever them.-The mortgagee of tenant's fixtures has a right or interest in the land, which the tenant who has mortgaged cannot defeat by a subsequent surrender of the lease to his landlord; and if he does so surrender, the mortgagee has a right to enter and sever such fixtures, and may maintain an action against an incoming tenant who has prevented him from exercising such right, and recover the value of the fixtures as severed. And per Curiam: "This doctrine has been fully adopted and acted on |