IMPLIED PROMISE NOT TO INTEP.FERE WITH SALE. 377 



])laintiff"s had cng^aged the defendant to sell his goods ; but on the sale 

 day (August) the plaintiff arrived at the farm Avith a bailiif and a notice 

 of distress for part of a half-year's rent due on the 25 th of Marcli. The 

 defendant verbally promised that if he would not distrain for the rent 

 due, and let the sale proceed, he would pay him not only the rent due, 

 but the rent that would be due at Michaelmas. It was held that the 

 promise to pay the accruing rent Avas a promise founded on a new 

 consideration distinct from the demand which the plaintiff had against 

 his tenant, and therefore void by the 29 Gar. II. c. 3, s. 4 ; and that 

 the promise being entire, and in the commencement void in part, was 

 void altogether ; and that the plaintiff therefore could not recover 

 from the defendant the rent due on the 25th of March. Lexington 

 V. Clarlc and Chafer v. Beckett Avere authorities directly against the 

 plaintiff on the question whether the promise, being void in part, 

 could be held good as to the other part, viz., the arrears due at Lady- 

 day, in respect of which it might have been good if confined to those 

 arrears. 



A7i agreement to take interest on rent in arrear does not take away 

 the right of distress {Skerry v. Preston). But j^er Bagleg J., the landlord 

 could not distrain for the interest {ili.). According to Davis v. Ggde, a 

 promissorij note given hy the tenant to his landlord for rent does not of 

 itself suspend the right of distress until the note is due. Gage v. Acton 

 decided that a debt due on a bond may be set off against rent, because 

 the latter is in the nature of a specialty debt ; and in Davis v. Ggde 

 the promissory note being a debt of inferior degree to the rent, the 

 receipt of the note created no extinguishment of the rent. Assuming 

 that the taking of the promissory note might operate as a suspension of 

 the riglit to distrain, the Court there held that an agreement between 

 the parties to that effect should have been pleaded. 



In Parrot and anor. v. Anderson, one Love, a tenant, being indebted 

 to his landlord for rent, gave the agent of the latter a hill of exchange at 

 ibur months for £146 rent, which he indorsed to a third person, and 

 afterwards paid the rent to the landlord, giving credit for it in his 

 accounts as if the tenant had paid the money. The bill was dis- 

 honoured ; and Love having taken the benefit of the Insolvent Act, the 

 defendant, Avho was the mortgagee of his farm, distrained his goods for 

 rent, inchiding the £146, and the assignees brought this action for 

 excessive distress. Mavle J. thought that the plaintiffs were not en- 

 titled to recover ; and it was arranged that they should be nonsuited, 

 leave being reserved to enter a verdict for £80, if on the facts of the 

 case the learned judge ought to have directed a verdict for them. 

 After consultation with Maulc J., who reported that he was requested 



