Contemporary Agricultural Laio. 141 



In Re Searle, Brooke, and Searle (1912, 1 Ch., 610 ; 81 L.J.Ch., 

 375) a tenancy " for two years certain and thereafter from year 

 to year until either party shall give to the other " notice to quit 

 was held not to be determinable at the end of the second year, 

 but only by giving notice at the end of the third or any sub- 

 sequent year. In Rudd v. Bowles (1912, 2 Ch., 60 ; 81 L.J.Ch., 

 277) certain leases were executed in May, 1903, and bore 

 date at the time of execution *' 1903," the day and month being 

 left in blank. By arrangement between the landlord and 

 tenant the dates were subsequently inserted as of July, 1904, 

 the figure 3 in the lease being altered to 4 for that purpose. 

 Notwithstanding the rule of law that a deed will be avoided by 

 a material alteration it was held that the alteration having been 

 made with the consent of both parties did not make the lease 

 void. In Printing Machinery Co. v. Linotype & Machinery, 

 Lim. (1912, 1 Ch., 566; 81 L.J.Ch., 422) a claim for rectification 

 of a lease on the ground of mistake was held to be a matter 

 that did not come within the arbitration clause referring any 

 dispute, difference, or question between the lessors and lessee to 

 arbitration but should be decided by the Court. Cressivell v. 

 Jeffreys (28 Times L.R., 413) was a case of distress. The 

 tenant of a farm was in arrear with his rent. The plaintiff in 

 the action had cattle grazing thereon. The landlord instructed 

 a bailiff to distrain for the rent due, and the fact that a distress 

 was likely to be levied came to the knowledge of the plaintiff, 

 who had a conversation with the bailiff and said he would move 

 his cattle off the farm. The bailiff said, " Don't be such a 

 fool. I can't touch your cattle because you took the keep by 

 auction." Thereupon the plaintiff', believing his cattle to be 

 safe, took no steps to remove them, but when a distress was 

 levied four of them were seized. In an action for wrongful 

 distress the jury found that the bailiff or landlord led the 

 plaintiff to believe that he was not going and had no right 

 to le-vy distress on the plaintiff's cattle. It was held that the 

 bailiff's statement was either a mis-statement of law or a 

 declaration of intention to abandon a legal right to distrain, 

 and that in neither case could it create an estoppel so as to 

 make the distress unlawful. 



In Re Derby {Earl) and Ferguson's Contract (1912, 1 Ch., 

 479 ; 81 L.J.Ch., 567) a tenant had planted land with bush 

 fruit with the written consent of his landlord, thereby 

 acquiring a right to compensation under the Agricultviral Hold- 

 ings Act, 1908, Section 2. The landlord sold the land under 

 conditions which provided that the purchaser was to be deemed 

 to have notice of and to take subject to the terms of all the 

 existing tenancies, but no express notice was given as to the 

 tenant's right to compensation for the fruit bushes. It was 



