NO STIPULATIONS IN LEASE TO THE EXCLUSION OF CUSTOM. 325 



of the plaintiff and defendant, of tlie glebe land tithes), the tenant was 

 bound to speud three -fourths of the hay and straw arising from the 

 glebe lands, iu the shape of manure upon them, and to leave the 

 residue of such manure for his successor or the landlord, on being paid 

 a reasonable price for it. The defendant contended that the effect of 

 the latter stipulation was to exclude the custom of the country as to the 

 allowances for seed and labour on quitting, as the plaintiff must be con- 

 sidered to hold under the terms of the original lease, in which no men- 

 tion was made of them. The plaintiff had sown the arable land for which 

 the compensation was claimed after his notice to quit, in consequence of 

 the defendant's insisting that he was bound to keep the farm in due course. 

 It was decided that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the plain- 

 tiff held under the defendant on the same terms as he had held by lease 

 originally under his father, so far as those terms were applicable to a 

 tenancy from year to year ; and as the custom of the country as to culti- 

 vation and the terms of quitting with respect to allowances for seed and 

 labour were clearly applicable to a tenancy from year to year, and as the 

 custom was by implication imported into the lease, the plaintiff and de- 

 fendant were bound by it after the lease expired. 



Holding v. Pigott, which was an action by an outgoing against an 

 incoming tenant, differed from Wehh v. Plumnier, in this, that there 

 ivere no exjpress stipulations in the lease as to the mode of ([uitting which 

 could exclude the custom, and hence the outgoing tenant was held to be 

 entitled to his way-going crop of one-half of the wheat sown after a 

 crop of turnips, according to the custom of the country, though the 

 terms of his holding were that wheat-land should be summer fallowed. 

 The Court considered that Boraston v. Green, both in its decision and 

 the reasons given by Lord EUenhorough and Mr. Justice Bayleg, went 

 strongly to the principle that the landlord would have his remedy by 

 action for breach of covenant, and the tenant the wheat under the cus- 

 tom; and that if that was the conclusion, in case the landlord had 

 taken to the premises at the expiration of the term, it must be equally 

 so at least where there is a new incoming tenant. Here the landlord 

 laid no claim at all to the crop, and did not even insist upon damages 

 for the breach of covenant ; but the tenant, who was not entitled to 

 those damages, set up the breach of covenant made with his landlord 

 as a ground for divesting the outgoing tenant of the property in the 

 corn, which he claimed under the custom. 



The principles of the decision in Munceg v. Dennis are to be found 

 in Holding v. Pigott. It was to the effect that, as under the custom 

 of the country the tenant would have been entitled to be paid for the 

 straw and manure on leaving, the covenant that the tenant should consume 



