THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE. 



LIABILITIES OF FARMERS FOR RENT 



IN CASE OF FIRE. 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 21. 



LoFFT and others v. Dennis. 



This importaut case came ou for arcument before the full 

 Court upon demurrer. Mr. Godfrey appeared for Mr. Capel 

 Lofft, of Bridf;ewater, Somersetshire, barrister-at-law ; the 

 Rev. Tbos. Settlewood Gleudowe, of Fodesley. Shropjhire, 

 clerk ; and the Rev. Frederick EUes, of Wixce Rectory, lla!- 

 stead. Eases, clerk, plaiutiffs ; and Mr. Pnipsou and Mr. Joseph 

 Kay appeared for the defeadrtiit, who is a farmer, residiug at 

 Wicken, in Cambridgeshire. Mr. Jackson, Haverhill, attorney 

 for plaintiffs ; Mr. Cross, Ely, for defenJant. 



Ry the statement of the defendant's case it appeared that 

 defendant was tenant, nnder the plaintiffs, of a farm called 

 " Spinney Abbey," in the parish of Wicken, Cambridgeshire. 

 At the time when he entered into possession, there were the 

 usual farm bnildinga and conveniences ; no a-jreement was 

 made respecting insuring the buildings, but the lessors effected 

 an insurance, paid the annual premiums, aud sometimes em- 

 ployed tiieir tenant to pay the policy for them. Tiie defen- 

 dant, knowing that the buildings were so insured, and not 

 being bound to insure, aud believing that, if the buildings 

 were injured or destroyed by fire, the less; rs would be bound 

 to restore them, did not etftct any other insurance upon the 

 premises. After the defendant had been iu possession for 

 many years, the premises were destroyed by a fire, which took 

 place in Juiic, 18,56, and thereupon the plaintiffs applied to the 

 Royal Exchange Insurance Office, and received tlie full vahic 

 of the damages (about £1,000) which had been caused by tlie 

 fire. Tney refused, however, to rebuild the premises, or any 

 part of them ; and subsequently, when the rent became due, 

 they brought an action against the defendant for his rent, 

 making no reduction on account of the destruction of the farm 

 buildings. The defendant objected to pay, ou the ground that 

 his landlords had received the value of the buildings, and re- 

 fused to restore them. These facts he stated in the form of 

 an equitable plea to the plaintiffs' declaration. Tue plaintiffs 

 objected by demur to these facts, as being no answer to their 

 claim. 



It was contended for the defendant that the claim was a 

 most unrighteous one, and that there were mar.y authorities 

 in the books to show that it could not be established. The 

 defendant relied on various cases decided, and particularly ou 

 the case of Brown v. Q,uilter, 2 Ambler's Reports 61i), in 

 vhich tlie then Lord Chancellor said : "The justice of the case 

 is clear, that a man should not pay rent for what he cannot 

 enjoy, and that occasioned by an accident which lie did not 

 undertake to stand to. I am much snrpriied it should be 

 looked upon as so clear a thing that there should be no defence 

 to suc-h an action at law, and that such a case should not he 

 considered as much an eviction as if it had been an eviction of 

 title, for the destruction of the house is the destruction of the 

 thing. When an action i.s brought for rent after the house is 

 burnt down there is good ground of equity for an injunction 

 till the house is rebuilt." Defendant's counsel further relied 

 on Lord St. Leonard's Handy Book, in the 15tb letter of 

 which it is thus laid down : " If you (the landlord) have in- 

 sured, although not bound to do so, aud received the money, 

 you cannot compel payment of the rent, if you decline to lay 

 out the money in rebuilding." 



The counsel for the plaintiffs stated that there were pecu- 

 liar circumstances which led to the non-reinstatement of the 

 premises, and for which the defendant had himself alone to 

 blame. Immediately after the money was received from the 

 Insurance. office, tlie llev. F. Elwcs, ore of the plaintiffs, went 

 to the farm with his builder, to make arrangements for the 

 reinstating of the buildingi ; but he ^^itUdrew when he found 

 that the defendant, who was only a yearly tenant, set up a 

 claim to have a lease. By that claim he prevented his landlords 

 from acct-pting an offer to purchase the farm, which was after- 

 wards sold at a loss of £750. The defendant paid the rent for 

 three successive half years after the fire, without any claim to 

 a setoff on tlie ground of the buildings not having been re- 

 stored. The farm was sold last summer, and it was not till 

 after the sale, when the defendant was called upon for the 

 half-year'a rent to Lady-day (£235), that he laid claim to such 

 Bet-off, although, as a yearly tenant, he might have previously 



quitted posaessiou. But for his own obstinacy the premieea 

 would have been reinstated soon after they were destroyed. 

 On the question of the legal right to recover the rent, plain- 

 tiff's counsel replied upo.i the case of Leeds v. Cheelham, 1 

 Simons' Reports 146, decided by Vice-Chancellor Sir John 

 J.,each, which was opposed to the authorities cited in favour of 

 the defendant. 



Lord Campbell said that hy the law of Scotland, if premises 

 were burnt do*n, the tenant was relieved from the payment of 

 rent ; but by the hw of England, if there was an "absolute 

 covenant to pay rent, the covenant must be performed, though 

 the tenant derived no benefit from the premises. So also in 

 Scotland, where shootings were rented, and it turned out there 

 were no grouse, the payment of rent might be resisted. But, 

 by the law of England, it was no answer to an action for the 

 rent to say that the premises had been burnt down ; nor was 

 it any ground for the interference of a Court of Equity. It 

 was said the plaintiffs had insured, though they had not en- 

 tered into any covenant to do so, and had received the money. 

 It might be that they would act unhandsouiely, if, \inder such 

 circumstances, they did not lay out the money iu rebuilding, 

 and harsbly, if they brought an action against the tenant for 

 the rent ; but that was not the eq\iity which formed the 

 ground for the interference of a Couit of Equity. The case of 

 Leeds v. Cheetham (1 Simons, 14G) was an authority ou that 

 point by a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, and by it this 

 Court ought to be bound. If the defendant wished to over- 

 turn it, he must go to a Court of Error ; but he (Lord Camp- 

 bell) must say he entirely approved it. It made no difference 

 that the landlords had received the money, for they were not 

 bound to lay it out. His lordship added some strong expres- 

 sions in favour of Lord St. Leonard's Ilandii Boole, and said 

 that if it were proposed to make it la^', he should support such 

 a proposal ; but at present it was only the opinion of a learned 

 judge, and the Court could not be governed by it, contrary to 

 a most solemn decision. 



The other judges (Justices Wightman, Crompton, and Hill) 

 were of the same opinion, that the plea was uo answer to the 

 action.— Judgment for the plaintiffs. 



STRENGTH OF FOOD. 



When wheat is low, and meat is high, turn wheat into meat ; 

 And v.'hen wheat is high, sow more land with wheat, 

 Which will lower the price of the bread we eat. 



Sill, — We now greatly require the agricultural chemist to 

 know the strength of wheat in feeding cattle, sheep, and 

 swine ; and if meat can be produced at less per lb. by wheat 

 than by cake, beans, < r barley, &c., iS:c., &c., it is highly 

 expedient and wise to use it. If a former means profit, 

 he ouglit to feed upon tlic cheapest food, and send it to the 

 dearest market when fed. Fanners ought to know the 

 strength of the food they feed with, as well as the strength 

 of the manure tliey lay on their lands. Not knowini? the 

 strength of each, they know not whether it is cheap 

 or dear. For the want of knowing cliemistry in both, the 

 fanner works without a line or rule, which is monstrous in 

 the great age of di.scovery, and over the middle of the ninc- 

 teeiilh century. Whilst agricultural chemistry is in its in- 

 fancy, agriculture will keep in the cradle, and require lead- 

 ing strings as in the strength of food and artificial manures, 

 according to the Murk Lane Express and the Farmers' 

 Magazine and common sense. If every kingdom or country 

 was to increase the growth of wheat per acre in proportion 

 to England, the human race upon the earth would not con- 

 sume the wheat grown yearly, it must, if used, be con- 

 verted into meat. Our gigantic improvements in .agricul- 

 tural implements will lind their way to all parts of the earth 

 to cnlliv.ite their land with ; .and our great improvements in 

 agricultnr.-, nay, in cattle, sheep, and swiiie, will find their 

 way into far distant climes, all of which will produce an 

 immense quantity of food for man, so that the British far- 

 mers may prepare them-;elves for an increase of produce of 

 the land to compensate them for the diminution of price. 

 An abundance of corn iu the market will make bread cheap, 

 and a low price of corn will soon cheapen meat. 



Samuel Arnsby. 



Mdlfiehl, Peterborouyh. 1059. 



