278 AUTHOKITY BY LANDLORD TO DISTRAIX. 



to leave the matter to the jury only, if he could tell them that they 

 mast find a verdict for the plaintiff, the Court refused a rule. Pollock 

 C.B. said : " The tenant cannot take advantajj^e of such a payment. 

 Suppose the steward of a landowner took bills of exchange for rent, and 

 then remitted the amount to the landholder, might he not distrain if 

 the bills were dishonoured ? " Kndiper Alderson B. : " If the defendant 

 himself had received the bill of exchange, and it was afterwards dis- 

 honoured, could he not have distrained ? " Farlce B. thought the de- 

 fendant liable to refund, on the ground that the money was paid by 

 the agent under a mistake of fact ; and added, " It is a question of fact 

 whether this payment by the agent was a loan to the tenant, or whether 

 the money was advanced by the agent to the landlord. A similar point 

 arose in Griffiths v. ClticJtcstcr. If the transaction amounted to a dis- 

 count of the bill by the agent for the tenant, then the rent was paid ; 

 but if it was only an advance of the rent by the agent to the landlord, 

 then he was entitled to distrain." The principal acted on in Slcijrinfj v. 

 Greenwood also applied here. 



Where a landlord gires an autJioritij to distrain for rent, he thereby 

 necessarily authorises the bailiflp to receive it if tendered {Hatch v. Hale). 

 In Lewis v. Rectd the landlord verbally authorized his bailiffs, through 

 his agent (Owens), to distrain for rent due to him fi'om his tenant, of a 

 farm called Aberbortheu, and a mountain sheep-walk, Peubryn, direct- 

 ing them not to take anything except on the demised premises. The 

 bailiff distrained sheep of another person's (supposing them to be the 

 tenant's) beyond the boundary of the farm ; the cattle were sold, and 

 the landlord received the proceeds. It was held that the landlord was 

 not liable in trover for the value of the cattle unless it were found by 

 the jury that he ratified the act of the bailiffs with knowledge of the 

 iiTegularity, or that he chose, without inquiry, to take the risk upon 

 himself and adopt the whole of their acts. The defendants had first 

 seized about a dozen sheep which they found on the Penbryn mountain ; 

 and while they were driving thein down, and somewhere very near the 

 boundary of the Penbryn sheep-walk, these were joined by the other 

 sheep (making forty in all), which had been straying upon an adjoining 

 sheep-walk l)elonging to am^lher farm. Owens received the proceeds of 

 the sale of the sheep, and accounted for the money to Read, the defend- 

 ant ; but there was no direct evidence that either Owens or Read was 

 informed where the sheep were taken, or had any disLinct knowledge 

 that the distress was not made on the Penbryn sheep-walk. 



Payment of rent under a distress is not a conclusive admission of title 

 in the distrainor, but may be rebutted by showing that he never had 

 any title (Knight v. Cox). A tender of the rent " under protect " is 



