RIGHTS OF OUT-GOING TENANT. 321 



of the plaintiff's estates ; and there was no doubt about its existence, as 

 the defendant had, on the evidence, paid the amount of a former valua- 

 tion under it to the tenant of this very farm. 



When the lencDicij of a farm expires, the tencmt must give iip the pios ses- 

 sion of the ivhote of it to the landlord, crops, and everything else, unless 

 there be a custom of the country for the tenant to hold over any part, 

 or to take any of the crops ; and the proof of the custom lies on the 

 tenant— ?;(9r Parhe B. {Caldecott v. Smythies). But it was held by the 

 Court of Exchequer in Griffiths v. Puleston, that where it appeared that 

 by the custom of the country as between outgoing and incoming farm 

 tenants, the former was entitled to a tvay-going share of the croi) of wheat 

 so/rn hy him in the last year of his tenancy, and that he cut the whole of 

 such crop, and kept the fences of the field in repair till the whole crop 

 was cut and carried awaj^, he had under such circumstances the posses- 

 sion, in law, of the field until the crop was carried away ; and that 

 therefore the vendee of his share of the crop had a good defence, under 

 not possessed, to an action by the new tenant for breaking and entering 

 the close in which the crop grew, for the purpose of carrying it away. 

 ParTce B. said, " The outgoing tenant 7'emains in piossession witil all is 

 done ivhich he has a right to do in respect of the crop, not merely until the 

 cutting. The case of Bevan v. Delahay is a strong authority to show 

 that his interest amounts to a possession, and not merely to an easement. 

 In that case there was a custom for the tenant to leave his way-yoiny crops 

 in tlie hams a?id other buildings of the farm for a certain time after his 

 lease had expired and he had quitted the premises ; and it was held 

 that the landlord might distrain the corn so left after the expiration of 

 six months from the determination of the term (notwithstanding 8 Anne, 

 c. 14, ss. G and 7). The obligation on the outgoing tenant to repair the 

 fences is strongly confirmatory of this view of the case." 



It was held by the Court of Exchequer that trover lies at the suit of a 

 landlord for com cut and carried away hy an outgoing tenant after the 

 expiration of his term, though sown by him before that time, under the 

 notion of being entitled to an away-going crop (Davies v. Connop). 

 Here the plaintiif, at the expiration of the defendant's term in Candle- 

 mas, 1813, had let the same lands to another by parol, reserving the 

 land on which the wheat was sown, and on which, therefore, the new 

 tenant did not enter. On the 25th of August, 1813, the plaintiff sent 

 his reapers to cut it ; but the defendant, who had sown a third part of 

 the arable land with wheat, conceiving, as he said, that he was entitled 

 to a way-going crop, came and turned them out, and then cut and carried 

 away the whole. The court decided that the plaintiff had such a pos- 

 session as enabled him to maintain trover, principally on the authority 



Y 



