G:2 ACCEPTANCE OF NEW TENANT. 



is iu possession, and has paid this money to the defendant for the very 

 purpose of his paying it over to the plaintiff : it is clearly, therefore, 

 money received for her use. It wonld have been a different question 

 if Pugh had not paid the money to the defendant, and the action had 

 been brought against him.'' 



So in Buitcmere v. Hayes, the plaintiff being possessed of a messuage 

 and premises for the residue of a certain term of years, made a parol 

 contract with the defendant to relinquish possession to him, and to 

 suffer him fo become tenant of the premises for the residue of the term, 

 in consideration of his paying £10 towards completing certain repairs 

 of the premises, on the latter being estimated by a surveyor. The 

 defendant became tenant, and entered into possession, but refused to 

 pay for such repairs after the surveyor had sent in his report. This 

 was held to be an agreement relating to the sale of an interest in land 

 within 29 Car. II. c. 3, s. 4, and void for want of being in writing, and 

 the defendant was allowed to avail himself under non assumpsit, of the 

 objection that there was no memorandum or note in writing, &c., of 

 such contract. Parlce B. said : " Perhaps if the declaration had stated 

 an agreement to relinquish the possession merely, it might not have 

 amounted to a contract for an interest in land ; but it goes on to 

 allege that the plaintiff was to suffer the defendant to become tenant 

 thereof for the residue of the term. Now, he could not become tenant 

 for the residue of the term except by an assignment, and that would 

 be a contract for an interest in land within the statute, and ought to 

 be reduced into writing." 



This case governed the decision of the Court of Common Pleas in 

 Cockinej v. Ward, where the contract pointed to a surrender or relin- 

 quishment by the plaintiff of an interest in land in favour of the defen- 

 dant. The facts were as follows : The plaintiff was about to relinquish 

 a farm, which her deceased husband had occupied for several years ; 

 and the defendant, who occupied an adjoining one, promised to give 

 her £100 if she would give up possession at Lady-day, and induce her 

 landlord to accept him as a tenant in lieu of her. This arrangement 

 was effected; but after entry the defendant refused to pay the £100, 

 admitting his liability, and asking for time till he got the valuation 

 of his own farm, which he duly obtained before the trial. It was 

 contended for the defendant that the agreement, if any existed, being 

 for the sale of an interest in land, could not be proved by parol 

 testimony ; while it was insisted for the plaintiff that the contract 

 being executed might be proved by parol, and that there was at all 

 events sufficient evidence of an account stated. A verdict was taken 

 for the plaintiff, damages £100, leave being reserved to the defendant 



