C8 CONTRACT BY i'AKOL TO LIVE AT A BOARDING HOUSE. 



the landlord for the rent due, and for plaintiff becoming tenant upon 

 the same terms as defendant. Plaintiff having entered into occu- 

 pation, and worked the ground, a distress was put in for rent due 

 from defendant to the landlord ; and in an action to recover damages 

 for breach of defendant's promise to pay the rent, it was held by the 

 Court of Queen's Bench that the promise in respect of which the 

 plaintiff sued was part of an indivisible contract for an interest in land 

 within sec. 4 of stat. 29 Car. II. c. 3, and that therefore plaintiff could 

 not recover. And^per Campbell C.J. : " the principle of the decision in 

 Green v. Saddington [see Law of the Farm, p. 65] is, that there were in 

 that case two separable contracts — not that there was one contract 

 which might be split in two, and that a new consideration was con- 

 stituted on the part performance of the contract." And per Crompton J.: 

 " I entertain a strong opinion upon Green v. Saddington, where it was 

 thought by the majority of the Court that the contract being executed 

 as far as regarded the land, and the promise sued on relating wholly 

 to money, the plaintiff might recover. That decision can only be 

 defended on the ground that there were two contracts. In this case 

 it is clear that there is only one, and one part of it cannot be severed 

 from the other." 



Contract hy parol to live at a hoarding-house.— In Wright v. Slaver t, 

 where the defendant agreed by parol with plaintiff, who kept a boarding- 

 house, to pay for the board and lodging of himself and servant, and 

 accommodation for a horse, £200 a year from a given day, terminable by 

 either party at a quarter's notice — this was held not to be a contract in 

 or concerning land within the Statute of Frauds, and plaintiff could 

 maintain an action for the breach of it. And per Blackburn J. : " In 

 Inman v. Stamp, (1 Stark, N. P. 12), and Edge v. Strafford, (1 C. & 

 J., 391), there would have been an actual demise, had the contract been 

 executed giving such a right. In the present case, there was no con- 

 tract that defendant should become tenant or occupier of any specific 

 room,, and therefore there was no intention to pass any interest in that 

 room." 



Right of mortga,gee of tenant's fixtures to enter and sever them. — The 

 moiigagee of tenant's fixtures has a right or interest m the land, which 

 the tenaut who has mortgaged cannot defeat by a subsequent surrender 

 of the lease to his landlord ; and if he does so surrender, the mortgagee 

 has a right to enter and sever such fixtures, and may maintain an 

 action against an incoming tenant who has prevented him from ex- 

 ercising such right, and recover the value of the fixtures as severed. 

 knUper Curiam: "This doctrine has been fully adopted and acted on 

 in modem cases as in Pleasant v. Benson (U East, 234), Dd. Bleadon v. 



