27G SALE OF TENANTS GOODS UNDER BILL OF SALE. 



drovers said they would take out their sheep. At hist he said they 

 might stay in for tlie night ; and when the men were gone to the inn 

 he drove the slieep to the pound, where they were kept four or five days, 

 and had to be replevied. It Avas decided that they were liable to dis 

 tress ; but the grazier was afterwards relieved in equity, on the ground 

 of fraud in Joyce, who was decreed to pay all the costs both in law 

 and equity. Serjeant Williams adds, in his note on this case (2 Saund. 

 290 a), " And it should seem at this day, a court of law would be 

 of opinion that cattle belonging to a drover being put into a ground 

 with the consent of the occu])ier, to graze oidy one night on their way 

 to a fair or market, are not liable to the distress of the landlord for 

 rent." 



In Horsford v. Wchsler, a tenant's goods, includhig certain eatage, 

 were sold under a bill of sale ; and his landlord (whose agent was the 

 defendant) agreed to let the sale proceed on condition that the arrears 

 of rent for which he had put in a distress should be paid out of the 

 proceeds. It was stated at the time of sale (November), where the de- 

 fendant attended, that the purchaser should have liberty to consume the 

 grass in the close till February 25, when the tenant's interest in them 

 terminated. The plaintiff purchased the eatage ; and as the sale did 

 not cover the arrears, the landlord distrained the plaintiff's cattle, which 

 were eating it off. It was held by Lord AUnger C.B., Bolland B., and 

 Chiniei) B. {Parlie 'B. diss.) that a contract was to be implied on the 

 part of the landlord not to distrain the cattle of such purchaser. Gurney 

 B. considered that any other construction of the agreement at the sale 

 " would render the transaction merely a trap for the cattle of any ])erson 

 who purchased the eatage sold under the sanction of the landlord him- 

 self." Bolland B. said he was " at first struck Avith the case of FowTces 

 V. Joyce, which was relied on for the defendant. The point there was, 

 whether the plaintiff' had any right to the privilege of having his cattle 

 unmolested. There was, in fact, no consideration to support the grant 

 of any such privilege ; but suppose the landlord there had by agreement 

 taken a portion of the rent from the owner of the cattle, could he after- 

 wards have distrained ? " 



Where a tenant, ivho is shortly alout to quit his farm, advertises for 

 sale hy auction his stocJc, Ax., upon the farm, his payment of rent already 

 due and to becoms due at the exjnration of his tenancy to his land- 

 lord, who has notice of the intended sale, does not raise an implied 

 ptromise (no actual promise was proved at the trial) on the part of the 

 landlord not to interfere with or prevent the sale or the removal of the 

 property, and the tenant cannot recover damages caused by the hindrance 

 of the sale {Bushhy v. Fisher). In Thomas v. Williams, a tenant of the 



