'Ml COVENANT NOT TO PLOUGH UP PASTUEE. 



the Statute of Frauds, and will not be enforced. See also Tr///.s v. 

 Straillimi. And per Lord Macdonahl C.B. : "The conduct of a landlord 

 in permitting and encouraging improvements under sanction of a lease, 

 "which he knew to be bad, may perhaps in equity give the lessee a claim 

 against him for a new lease, though it docs not at law amount to a 

 confirmation or renewal of the old " {Hardcastle v. Shaffo). 



A tenant wider agreement to manage and quit the premises, agreeahlg to 

 the manner in which the same had been managed and quitted by the former 

 tenants, is not bound by the terms npon which they held, without 

 notice of the existence and purport of the lease, and if he have no such 

 notice he is only bound by the mode in which the landlord shall have 

 permitted the former tenants to manage the farm, though they may 

 have been legally bound by stricter agreements {Liehenrood v. Vines). 

 Lord EJ(1o7i C. said : " With regard to the question what is the custom of 

 the country, that is one which has no place where there is a written 

 agiTcment'" {ib.). 



In a lease for years of land, where the lessee covenants not to 'plough 

 pasture land, and if hf. does, then to pay after the rate of 20s. per annum 

 for every acre ploughed, no injunction will be granted against the 

 tenant's ploughing, for the parties themselves have agreed to the 

 damage, and set a price for ploughing (Woodward y. Ogles) ; nor will 

 the Court relieve the lessee against the penalty if he ploughs (ib.) ; and 

 so in Forbes v. Carneg. Where a farm was let subject to certain yearly 

 payments, independent of the rent, in case the tenant should not crop, 

 manure, and manage it, in manner, specified and covenanted in the 

 lease ; and also in case the tenant during the hist three years of the 

 term should sow more than 70 acres of clover in one year, the additional 

 rent of £10 an acre, for every acre above 70 acres for the residue of the 

 term — it was held that the additional rents were in the nature of 

 liquidated damages, and not of penalties ; and therefore on a bill filed 

 by the landlord for a discovery of breaches of the covenants in aid of 

 an action at law, a plea that the discovery might subject the tenant to 

 penalties was overruled {Jones v. (Ireen). And per Alexander C.B : 

 " Since the case of Rolf e v. Paterson, it has always been understood in 

 all cases between the landlord and tenant, whether the term used has 

 been * penalty,' or ' liquidated damages,' or ' additional rent,' or any 

 other similar expression, that it should not be considered as a penalty 

 in order to protect the defendant from answering, but as stipulated 

 damages or additional rent, and as entitling the plaintilf to a discovery 

 of the transaction." 



In Boirers v. N'i.ron, the reddendum of the lease, on whirh covenant was 

 brought, was "yielding and paying therefore " to the lessor "the yearly 



