324 CUSTOM TO LEAVE MANURE. 



farm paid for a way-going crop, or for foldage, manure, fallowing, or till- 

 age, then if the lease be wholly silent as to the terms upon which he is 

 to quit, the custom may be introduced, and he may be entitled- to receive 

 for a way-going crop, foldage, &c. Upon this ground Senior v. Armitage 

 was determined ; for the lease there was wholly silent as to the terms of 

 quitting, and the claim there was different from the present, being a claim 

 for labour done by the outgoing tenant, from which he could not him- 

 self derive any benefit. Here, too, there is a specific contract to fold the 

 flock upon the premises under a penalty. My judgment, however, is 

 founded particularly on the last stipulation in the lease, by which the 

 tenant is prohibited from carrying off the manure, and by which the in- 

 coming tenant is directed to make certain payments to him ; and if a 

 lease speaks distinctly of the allowances to be made on quitting, it seems 

 to me to exclude all others which are not named." And j^i^-r Holroijd J., 

 " The covenant in the lease that the tenant will fold his flock which he 

 Bhall keep, &c., is binding on him to keep a flock and fold it on the 

 usual parts of the demised premises." Best J, added that, " In Wigejles- 

 u'orth V. Ballkon there were no sufficient circumstances to exclude the 

 custom. Here the parties have made some stipulation as to the terms 

 of quitting ; and if they had intended that this or any other pay- 

 ment should be also made, they would have introduced them into the 

 lease." 



Parlte B. also observed on the latter point, in Hutton v. Warren, " No 

 doubt could exist, in Well v. Phnnmrr, but that the language of the 

 lease was equivalent to a stipulation that the lessor should pay for the 

 things mentioned, and no more.'' In Rolerts v. Barker the principal 

 question teas ivlietlier the words in the lease exp'essty hinding the tenant 

 to teave the manure in the fold, to be expended on the land by the de- 

 fendant (the landlord) or his subsequent tenant, without making any 

 mention of payment for it, excluded the custom of the country for an out- 

 going tenant to leave and he paid for such manure ; and the Court held 

 that they did exclude it, and refused to engraft the custom to pay for 

 the manure upon the engagement to leave it for the use of the succeed- 

 ing tenant. 



All these cases were reviewed by tlie Court of Exchequer in Hutton v, 

 Warren, where, by the custom of Lincolnshire, a tenant was hound to 

 cultivate the farm according to a certain course of hushandry, and was en- 

 titled on quitting to a fair allov:ance from tJie landlord or incoming tenant 

 for seeds and tahour bestowed on the arable land during the last year of 

 the tenancy, and was obliged to leave the manure on the land if the 

 landlr.rd chose to purchase it. By the terms of the lease (in this in- 

 stance oiiginal lease, Avhich had long since run out, between the fathers 



