TENDER WHEN NOT TOO LATE. 271 



But detinue will not lie for goods impounded damage feasant, where 

 tender of amends has been made after the impounding, Gahvay v. Cozens 

 (1 C.B. 788 ; 14 L.J. (N.S.) C.P. 215), and Singleton v. Williamson. 



Tender not too late if made after imjmunding and before sale. — An action 

 is maintainable upon the equity of the statute 2 Will. & Marg, stat. 1, 

 c. 5, s. 2, for selling goods seised under a distress for rent, where a tender 

 of the rent and expenses has been made before the sale, and within five 

 days of the seizure, although after impounding ; Ullis v. Ta?jlor is there- 

 fore overruled. And per Curiam: "The case most relied upon by the 

 defendant was that of Ellis v. Taglor (8 M. & W. 415, and 10 L.J. 

 (N.S.) Ex. 462), in which the Court held, upon the authority of two 

 previous cases, that a tender after impounding a distress for rent was 

 too late. The two cases were Thomas v. Harris (1 M. & G. 695, 9 L.J. 

 (N.S.) C. P. 308), in which Mr. Justice Maide differed from the other 

 judges ; and Ladd^. Thomas (12 Ad. & E. 117, and 9 L.J. (N.S.) Q. B. 

 345). Undoubtedly those cases are authorities upon the point. But 

 notwithstanding those decisions, the judges of the Court who heard the 

 argument were unanimously of opinion that upon the equity of the 

 statute of Will & Marg, before referred to, an action is maintainable for 

 selling goods distrained for rent after tender of tlie rent and expenses 

 though the tender be made after the impounding." And/?er Cromplon 

 J. : " The Court, in Ellis v. Taylor, seems to have assumed that because 

 it had been decided that the defendant could lawfully keep the goods, 

 notwithstanding a tender, if it was after impounding, he had therefore 

 a right to sell. The case of Glgn v. Thomas (11 Ex. 870, & 25 L.J. 

 (N.S.) Ex. 125) carried the law far enough against tenants " {Johnson v. 

 Ujiham). 



Proper person to receive tender of rent. — On distraining for rent, the 

 man left in possession on the premises (being other than the person 

 holding the warrant ft-om the landlord to distrain) has no authority in 

 law to receive the rent. Where, therefore, W. executed a warrant of 

 distress, directed to him by the landlord, and left R. on the premises in 

 possession, and the tenant tendered the rent to R. who refused to receive 

 it, the tenant knowing that R. had not authority in fact to receive 

 the rent, and that W. had, and that he was within a reasonable and 

 convenient distance of the premises, it was held that the tender was 

 invalid. And per Hill J. : " If it were necessaiy to decide whether the 

 bailiff employed to make a distress has authority to receive a tender, I 

 should say he has, as there ought to be somebody who may be conveni- 

 ently applied to by the tenant for the purpose of tender. Pilhngtofi's Case 

 (Cro. Eliz. 813) decides that when a bailiff goes with his master, who 

 himself distrains, the bailiff has no authority to receive a tender ; but 



