PURCHASE OF MILK- WALK. 65 



possession at once in consequence of the death of plaintiff's wife, paying 

 £51 5s. 3d. down, and promising to pay the balance when the agree- 

 ment was ready for execution. Finding that the plaintiff had misre- 

 presented both the quality of the customers and the quantity of the 

 milk sold, the defendant refused to pay the balance of the purchase 

 money, £28 14s. Od. Crcssivell J. left the case to the jury on the 

 conflict of evidence, reserving leave to the defendant to move to enter a 

 verdict for him, or a nonsuit, if the Court of Common Pleas should 

 think the objection that the contract was void by 29 Car. II., c. 3, s. 4, 

 for want of a writing, and the plaintiff had a verdict for the balance. 

 The Court, Ckessivell J. assentiente, directed a nonsuit, and held that 

 the yearly tenancy of the premises where he carried on his business, 

 whicli the plaintiff agreed to assign to the defendant, was clearly 

 an interest in lands within the statute, and cited the authority of 

 Coching v. Ward. There the plaintiff announced to the defendant that 

 she had not an interest which she could legally part with to him ; but 

 here the plaintiff expressly agreed to " yield up the possession and occu- 

 pation of the premises to the defendant, and to permit him thenceforth 

 to occupy the same." If the landlord consented, Harding was to 

 become his tenant ; if not, he was to be tenant to Smart for the extent 

 of his interest in the premises. And per 3IauU J. : " The only dif- 

 ference between the two cases is, that there was in CocJcing v. Ward a 

 stipulation in the agreement that the plaintiff would endeavour to in- 

 duce the landlord to accept the defendant as tenant in lieu of himself. 

 The case is a stronger one than Coching v. Ward, inasmuch as here the 

 plaintiff contracts absolutely to assign, whereas there the contract was 

 to assign subject to the consent of the landlord." 



Again in Green v. Saddington a parol agreement was made that de- 

 fendant should, give up possession of iiremises in Manchester to the 

 plaintiff, who was to pay him £37, and that the latter was to repay him 

 £10 in case the town-council of Manchester should at a future time 

 refuse a licence to the plaintiff to use the pi-emiscs as a slaughter-house. 

 The possession was given up by the defendant, and the plaintiff paid 

 £37, but the licence was refused. The plaintiff was nonsuited by the 

 recorder in the Court of Eecord in an action to recover the £10 ; but it 

 was held by Wigldman and Erie J J. {Cromjjfon J. duMtante) that the 

 contract as far as the land was concerned having been executed, the 

 contract sued upon was not a contract for an interest in or concerning 

 land within section 4 of 29 Car. IT., c. 3, and the rule was made abso- 

 lute for a new trial. Erie J. said, " The defendant objects that the 

 whole contract was for a contract or sale of an interest concerning land, 

 and the objection would prevail if the action was for the land or the 



