OVERCROPPING NOT WASTE. 315 



that the defendant Iiad become tenant to the plaintiff of a farm, the 

 former imdertooh to make not less ilian thirty acres of fallow, and to spend 

 £60 ivorth of manure annually, and to Iceep the Inildings in repair, being 

 allowed timber m the rough, was held bad on general demurrer, those 

 obligations not arising out of the bare relation of landlord and tenant. 

 Gibbs C.J. said, " The doctrine which I have often heard Mr. Justice 

 Bidler lay down is, that every tenant, where there is no particular 

 agreement, dispensing with that engagement, is bound to cultivate his 

 farm in a husbandlike manner, and to consume the produce on it ; this 

 is an engagement which arises out of the letting, and which the tenant 

 cannot dispense with, unless by special agreement ; but it does not 

 follow that a tenant shall be bound to have a certain portion of land 

 every year in a certain tillage," 



■ In an action against a tenant, on promises that he ivoidd occupy the 

 farm in a good and husbandlilcc mcmnrr, according to the custom of the 

 country, the allegation that a tenant has treated his estate contrary to 

 good husbandry and the custom of the country (Cheshire) is proved by 

 showing that he had treated it contrary to the prevalent course of good 

 husbandry in his neighbourhood, as by tilling half of his farm at once, 

 when no other farmer tilled more than a third, and sowing nearly half 

 of that with wheat {Legh v. Hewitt). But evidence of a breach of 

 covenant by mismanagement in overcropping or by deviating from the 

 usual rotation of crops, is inadmissible in ejectment by landlord against 

 tenant, where particulars of breaches delivered are for selling hay and 

 straw off the land, removing manure, and non-cultivation {Doe dem. 

 Winnall v. Broad). And ^;er Curiam : " Overcropping does not come 

 within the ordinary meaning of the term 'non-cultivation,' which 

 means leaving the land to go to waste " (/7^.). 



In Angerstcin v. Handson the declaration stated that tiie defendant 

 vndcrtoolz to cultivate and manage the farm and lands according to the 

 course of good husbandry and the custom of the cou)iiry where the farm 

 was sUuafe, and then averred that according to the course of good 

 husbandry and the custom of the country, tlie defendant ought to have 

 had about one-half only of the arable land in corn, one-fourth in seeds, 

 and the remaining fourth part in turnips or fallow. That was an aver- 

 ment of the custom ; and the breach alleged was that the defendant 

 had more than one-half of the arable lands in corn, had not one-fourth 

 in seeds, and less than one-fourth in fallow or turnips. The defendant 

 traversed the custom in the same terms as it was alleged in the declara- 

 tion, and the jury found that the custom was not as the plaintiff 

 alleged, but that there was a different custom ; and that the farm had 

 been cultivated contrary to the course of good husbandry in the neigh- 



