tAYtNG FOR TILLAGES. 31 7 



Was not a quitting under the terms of the tenancy, but in reality a running 

 away, the landlord was entitled to possession, without making him any 

 compensation for the tillages and improvements he left on the farm. 



In Cleghorn \. Durrant, the tenant of a farm contemjilaflng talcing a 

 lease and pending negotiations for the same, being desirous of carrying out 

 certain thatching and draining improvements, and anxious as to repayment 

 of them, wrote thus to her landlord — "I should feel obliged if you 

 would send us a rough draft of the agreement at your earliest couveni- 

 ance, as I do not feel comfortable to proceed Avith the necessary im- 

 provements of thatching the barn and draining the land, &c., without 

 some little assurance from you that we are acting safely." The land- 

 lord replied as follows — " I will send you a copy of the lease next week, 

 and trust you will make yourself comfortable as to the thatching of the 

 barn and the draining, &c, ; I will pay for the thatching and draining 

 if we do not come to terms ; but as the covenants will not be unusual, I 

 trust there will be no necessity for that." The tenant, who was under 

 notice from the landlord to quit at tlie end of the half-year, declined 

 continuing tenant of the farm under the terms of the new lease, an 

 event for which no provision had been made in the correspondence, and 

 the landlord, on the determination of the tenancy, brought his action 

 for the half-year's rent. The tenant pleaded by way of set-off, the 

 money she had paid for thatching and draining, and paid into Court 

 the balance of the landlord's claim ; and it was held by the Court of 

 Common Pleas, on the interpretation of the correspondence, that the 

 defendant was entitled to set-off' against plaintiff's claim for rent, the 

 money she had expended on the said improvements. 



The question of the custom of the countrg as to paging for tillages 

 between tlie out-going and in-coming tenant, was very much considered by 

 the Court of Exchequer in Faviell v. Gaslcoin, which was an action in 

 assumpsit to recover the amount of the usual valuation paid by an in- 

 coming tenant for fallows, half fallows, dressings, &c. The defendant's 

 testator being in possession of an estate, of part of which he was the 

 owner, and another part Crown lands, on a lease which was to expire 

 on the 10th of October, 1849, contracted with the plaintiff' to sell to 

 him his part of the estate, and demised to him the Crown lands for one 

 year from the 29th of September, 1848. The plaintiff agreed to keep 

 all the Crown lease covenants, and the testator agreed that in case he 

 could get a further lease from the Crown for fourteen years, he would 

 grant to the plaintiff a lease for thirteen years, subject to the same 

 covenants. On February 2nd, 1849, the plaintiff" signed a memorandum 

 agreeing to take (with others) the Crown lands, " subject to the same 

 rents, covenants, and obligations in all respects," as were contained and 



