Page images






Not TENANT. cottage, rented by a millowner for a

in default of payment by the plainfamilies employed in the mill. tiff, to let the plaintiff enter into Some of the children of the former the premises and carry on therein worked it. The agreement was the trade for the defendant until the that 2s. a-week should be deducted agreement should be determined from the children's wages as rent. by the notice mentioned in the The pauper worked as a husband- agreement. The plaintiff was to

Held, that the relation carry on business “in the place of landlord and tenant existed. and stead in the same “ There was," as Williams, J., ob- and with the same privileges as served, “a renting by one who G. Utting hath heretofore done." was not servant."

The agreement proceeded, "whenR. v. Ponsonby (1841), 3 Q. B. ever either of the said parties hereto 14; 6 Jurist, 612. The occupiers of shall be desirous of determining and apartments in Hampton Court, who putting an end to this agreement, reside there with their families he, the said F. Mayhew, shall and and provide their own furniture, will, on receiving from the said G. rateable.

Suttle one month's previous notice Hughes v. Chatham (1843), 5 in writing of such desire, and withM. & G. 54 ; 1 Lutw. R. C. 51. A out being paid, or requiring to be master ropemaker occupied a house paid, any sum of money, &c., quit in a Government dockyard. He and deliver to him, the said G. paid no rent for it, and held it as Suttle, the said trade or business, part remuneration for his services. and the full quiet and peaceable No part of the house was used for possession of all and every of the public purposes, and he had the said premises.” Notwithstanding exclusive control of it. The the provisions with respect to dedistinction to be deduced from termination by notice, the Court the settlement cases, Tindal, C. J., thought that no tenancy had been took to be this :- If a servant is created, and that the occupation not permitted to occupy as a reward, was ancillary to the carrying on of in the performance of his master's the trade for the defendant. contract to pay him, but required Clark v. Bury St. Edmunds to occupy in the performance of (1856), 1 C. B. N. S. 23; 26 L. J. his master's contract to serve his C. P. 12. Keeper of the Guildmaster, his occupation is that of his hall at Bury St. Edmunds held master. As nothing in the facts to occupy house attached to it as of the case showed that the master servant because he was required ropemaker was required to occupy to reside there for the performance the house for the performance of

of his duties. his duties, or did occupy it in R. v. Tiverton (1861), 30 L. J. order to perform them, or that the M. C. 79. A Wesleyan' minister, occupation was conducive to that who lived in a house taken by the purpose more than any other stewards of the circuit within which house, held that the claimant oc- he officiated, paid the rates and cupied the house as tenant within taxes ; but they were repaid by the 2 Will. IV., c. 45, s. 27.

stewards. It appeared to be the Gambier v. Lydford (1854), 3 practice of the stewards to take E. & B. 346. The governor of a houses for the ministers. No settleprison rateable in respect of a ment gained. According to Crompcoach-house and stabling within ton, J., the minister was very much the precincts of the prison to the in the position of servant to the extent to which the occupation stewards. This case appears pecu


NOT TENANT. was in excess of what was neces. liar. (1) The minister does not sary for the performance of his appear to have been required to duties. Outside the prison pre- reside in the house ; (2) it was not cincts were buildings occupied by the house of the stewards ; (3) he the officers of the prison. None actually paid the rent to the landoccupied more than was necessary lord. (See remarks of Willes, J., for the discharge of their duties in the following case.) and the accommodation of their White v. Bayley (1861), 10 C. B. families ; the dwellings were as- N. S. 227. Plaintiff appointed signed to the officers by the directors, librarian and storekeeper on these and they had no discretion as to terms, inter alia : that the person the houses and apartments assigned to be appointed should have preto them. Held, by Campbell, C. J., mises, rent and taxes free, in a and Wightman, J., that the resi- good situation; that £35 per cent. dences outside the walls were rate- should be allowed to the storeable. Coleridge, J., dissented as to keeper on all books sold out of the the latter point. It is submitteil that shop, but not on donations or subthe distinction taken between resi- scriptions, he making such arrangedences inside and those outside ments with booksellers, agents of prison walls is not warranted by the society, as the committees any of the previous decisions. See should from time to time deterCongreve v. Upton (1864), 4 B. & S. mine. To carry on a retail busi857; 33 L. J. M. C. 83.

ness in other New Church works Ford v. Harington (1869), L. R. and general literature for his own 5 C. P. 282. Canon of a cathedral benefit. The society had purchurch and one of the chapter chased the lease, which was asoccupied a house with which the signed to trustees for it. Held, chapter could not interfere, and that no tenancy existed. In the which the canon repaired. Held, view of Willes, J.,“no tenancy in that he occupied as canon and a the premises even to the extent of a corporation sole and not as one of tenancy at will ever did vest in the the chapter, and that he could vote plaintiff." The agreement was one in respect of it.

of service, and it made no differSmith v. Seghill (1875), L. R. ence that as a part of the remunera10 Q. B. 422 ; 44 L. J. M. C. 114. tion he was to have liberty to carry S., a collier, resided in house be- on his own retail business. “I longing to his employers. He can quite conceive a case such as paid no rent; was not entitled to this, where the representatives of a notice to quit, and the occupation society might go to a person having would cease when S.'s service already a shop where he was carryclosed. The house was one of ing on business, and agree with several which his employers filled him to become their agent for the at their discretion. It was not sale of their particular publications, absolutely essential for workinen and to pay him a certain salary for to live in those houses, though his services, and in addition to pay the owners preferred that the the rent and taxes of the premises, workmen should live near their and where a question might arise work. An occupier within 32 & whether by this arrangement an 33 Vict. c. 41, s. 19.

interest in the shop vested in the society. The proper answer in such a case would seem to me to be that it would not."

R. v. Spurrell (1865), L. R.


Nor TENANT. 1 Q. B. 72; 35 L. J. M. C. 74 A bailiff of a farmer who occupied a cottage belonging to his master, without paying rent, in part remuneration of his services, not a “ substantial householder" within 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 1.

Fox v. Dalby (1874), 10 L. R. C.P. 285. A sergeant of militia occupied as such a house close to the premises in which the arms, &c., of the corps were stored. The house was assigned to him by the commanding officer as a place to live in; and if he left it without the permission

of his officer, he would be guilty of a breach of discipline. He had 2s. 4d. per week deducted out of his pay, as occupier of the house ; but he would not receive the 2s. 4d. extra if he resided elsewhere. He could perform the duties required of him equally well if he were living elsewhere, which he might do with his officer's permission. Not tenant within s. 3 of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102.




Not PARTNER. Grace v. Smith (1775), 2 W. Bl.

Wilkinson v. Frasier (1802),"4 998.

Esp. 182. Action by seaman for Waugh v. Carver (1793), 2 H. Bl. wages; contended that he was a 235. Two shipping agents agreed partner on the ground that the to share in certain property, the produce of the voyage was to be profits of their respective commis

divided in certain proportions ; sions and discounts on tradesmen's not a partner. bills; held liable as partners to

Hesketh v. Blanchard (1803), those with whom either contracted, 4 East, 144. A. having neither though the agreement prescribed ready-money nor credit, proposes that neither should be answerable to B., the plaintiff

, that if he will for the acts or losses of the other. order along with A., certain goods

Dry v. Boswell (1808), 1 Camp. to be shipped on a joint adventure, 329. Action by B. for work and B. shall have half of any profit labour in regard to the repair of for his trouble. B. ordered the a lighter. Ellenborough, C. J., goods on their joint account and directed the jury, that if R., the afterwards paid for them ; no sole owner, and B., agreed that the partnership between them, though nett profits should be equally divided B. as a partner was liable to third among them, they were partners in persons. the concern, so as to be liable to R. v. Hartley (1807), R. & R. C.C. third parties ; but not so, if the 139. Defendant employed to take agreement were to give half the coals from F.'scolliery and sell them; gross earnings, that being only a to be paid for the labour by allowmode of paying wages of labour. ing him two-thirds of the difference

Ex parte Hamper (1811), 17 Ves. between the price at which he sold 403.

them and the price charged at the Cheap v. Cramond (1821), 4 B. & colliery ; a servant and not a Ald. 663. Merchants in London, partner. who became bankrupt, recom

Mair v. Glennie (1815), 4. M. mended consignments of goods to & S. 240. Mair, owner of a ship, a house abroad. It was agreed bound on a voyage to Havannah, that all commissions on the sales with a cargo belonging to him. of goods recommended or “in. Young, the master of the ship, fluenced” by the one house to the was party to an agreement with other should be equally divided Mair that Young should have in without allowing a deduction for lieu of all wages, primage, &c., expenses ; the bankrupts were one-fifth share of the profit or partners quoad hoc with the firm loss of the intended voyage, and abroad.

was to follow Mair's instructions. Heyhoe v. Burge (1850), 9 C. B. Geddesv.Wallace(1820), 2 Bligh, 431. A. and B. agreed

for 270. The deed of copartnery of services performed,” to give to C., a certain company was subscribed the defendants, one-fourth part of by Geddes, who was to have onethe clear profits arising from a

seventeenth share without advanccontract for making a certain rail. ing any capital. Article 3 stated way; C. liable as a partner to third that," in the said capital stock the persons.

partners shall be interested in the


[ocr errors]


Not PARTNER. Greenham v. Gray (1855), 4 Irish profits or loss in the following C. L. R. 501. Agreement be- proportions ... the said John tween plaintiff and defendant to Geddes, one seventeenth share.” carry on the business of cotton spin- By an agreement referred to in ners at defendant's mill. Plaintiff the articles of copartnery, he to have the full control and was to receive £100 besides his management of mill, and to give seventeenth share of the profit or his whole time to it; to direct all loss. The House of Lords, looking departments ; to have the exclu- to the whole of the articles, and to sive power of dismissing servants ; the conduct of the parties, decided to be paid for his management, that as between him and them, he &c., £150, and to receive one-fifth was not a partner. part of the nett profits. Plaintiff Smith v. Watson (1824), 2 B. & and defendant partners.

C. 401. A., a merchant, bought whalebone through B., a broker. It was agreed that, as remuneration for his trouble, B. should receive one-fourth of the profits arising from the sale, and bear an eighth proportion of the losses. Although B. might be liable to third persons, there was no partnership with A.

Pott v. Eyton (1846), 3 C. B. 32. Eyton's name appeared over door of shop kept by Jones, and he received per-centage of profits ; goods purchased in Eyton's name ; no evidence of credit given to Eyton ; not a partner as to third persons.

Rawlinson v. Clarke (1846), 15 M. & W. 292. Plaintiff sold to defendant his business as a surgeon and apothecary. Plaintiff agreed to continue to reside at his place of business and to carry on the profession as before for a year, and to introduce defendant to his patients. Defendant to allow plaintiff during the year a moiety of the clear profits; the deed did not create a partnership.

Stockerv. Brockelbank (1851), 3 Mac. & G. 250; 20 L. J. Ch. N. S. 401. Agreement between plaintiff and defendant that the plaintiff would serve the said “partners” as “manager," and that the plaintiff should have the conduct and management of the business, and should receive for his services such a sum as would be equal to £40 per cent. upon the nett profits ; no partnership existed,

« EelmineJätka »