COMPENSATION TO OUT-GOING TENANT. 329 



consequently that the tenant was not chargeable with the expense of 

 carriage of the drain-pipes beyond the first ten acres {Beer appf. v, 

 Santer reftpt.). 



A mcuje for a landlord la pay a sum in compenmtion to the offyoing 

 tenant, for the labour and e.rjmue bestowed by him upon tiUijig, failowing, 

 and manuriny tlie arable and meadow land, according to the course of 

 good husbandry, the advantage of which the tenant could not otherwise 

 reap, is a reasonable usage ; and such practice being a mere usage of 

 the neighbourhood (Bradford) is not a custom strictly speaking, and 

 need not be immemorial {Datby v. Hirst). And, in fact, where an out- 

 going tenant does the necessary ploughing, and sows the land in the 

 ordinary and proper course of husbandry, and leaves manure for the 

 benefit of the landlord, which is accepted by him, the law, without 

 allegation or proof of the custom of the country, will imply an assumpsit 

 on the part of the landlord to pay the tenant the value of such labour 

 and manure, and the plaintiff is not deprived of that right by reason of 

 his having held over after the expiration of the term {Martin v, Coulman). 



This principle of compensation by a landlord to his outgoing tenant ivas 

 extended by Coleridge and Erie JJ. to the case of drainage, in Mousley v 

 Ludlam, where their Lordships held that it is not an unreasonable 

 custom that a tenant who is bound to use and cultivate his farm ac- 

 cording to the rules of good husbandry and the custom of the country, 

 should be entitled on quitting to charge the landlord with a certain 

 portion of the expense of the necessary drainage done without his con- 

 sent or knowledge. This was a County Court action by an outgoing 

 yearly tenant to recover £50 from his landlord, for having given up to 

 him his farm at his request with the appurtenances, and the benefit 

 and advantage of work done, manure, soughing tiles, and other materials 

 expended and bestowed by the plaintiff in and about the cultivation 

 and improvements thereof, together with stone posts, grass, herbage, 

 crops, chattels, and effects then growing and being thereon. The 

 plaintiff had been a yearly tenant to the defendant in Derbyshire, on 

 condition that he should use the farm in a good and tenantable manner, 

 according to the rules of good husbandry and the cnstom of the coun- 

 try, and the valuation of his tenant-right included charges under each 

 of the above heads. For draining, which had been done two years, he 

 charged the landlord with five-sevenths of the cost, and for that which 

 had only been done one, with six-sevenths. This draining was done 

 without the defendant's consent, and his witnesses stated, in contradic- 

 tion of the plaintiff's, that where it was done without such consent, the 

 custom of the country that the offgoing tenant, in addition to com- 

 pensation for crops, &c., should be paid for the expense of drainage and 



