332 VALUATION BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT. 



j)erfan»c(J, he, the defendant, would upon the delivery up of possession 

 of the said land, on the day specified, so cultivated as aforesaid, a/id on 

 such performance of such other covenants aforesaid, pay the plaintiff for 

 the manure, tillages, hay, clover, and all other things then upon the 

 laud, as were usually paid for between an outgoing and incoming tenant. 

 It was held by the Court of Common Pleas, on the authority of Boone 

 V. Eijre (1 H. B. 273 n), that the delivery up of the agreement was not 

 a condition precedent to the payment for manure, &c." 



Bight to have letters 'produced on question respectincj valuation of tillage, 

 Ac. — In Brice v. Harrison, the declaration stated an agreement between 

 the plaintiff and defendant, that the plaintiff should lease to the 

 defendant a fixrra, and that defendant should forthwith, after making 

 the agreement, pay to the plaintiff the amount of certain tillages on the 

 farm, at a valuation ; and the breach averred was the non-payment of 

 the valuation. The defendant on an aflBdavit stating that during the 

 treaty for the farm, he had written letters to the plaintiff, which were 

 in the plaintiff's possession, but of which the defendant had no copies, 

 and that he believed it was on such letters that the plaintiff relied to 

 establish such agreement, and that he had a just ground to defend the 

 action, and that it was necessary for the purpose of his pleading that 

 he should inspect the letters, obtained an order from a Judge at. 

 Chambers to inspect them. It was held, on cause being shown against 

 a rule to rescind the order, that the defendant was entitled to insp)ection 

 at common law. And per Williams J., " It did not follow in Shadwell 

 V. Shadu-ell (28 L.J. (N.S.) C.P. 275), that a writing must be 

 necessarily produced to prove the agreement referred to ; but here the 

 declaration could not be proved by parol evidence only. The plea 

 there might have been supported by a release by parol, a writing was 

 not necessary ; and it also appeared to me that there was only a surmise 

 that the defendant intended to rely on some document supposed to exist." 



Where persons are appointed under an agreement merclg to value the 

 goods and repairs of a farm, an appraisement stamp upon the written 

 valuation is sufficient without an award stamp (Leeds x. Burroics), 

 although in fact the appraisement is in the nature of an award (BerJcins 

 V. Botts). And 2>er Wilde C.J. : " ' Tivo sworn appraisers ' in statute 2 

 Will d; Marg, sess. 1, c. 5, s. 2, must be persons reasonably competent, 

 but need not be professional appl-aisers " {Boden v. Egton). Where an 

 agreement in writing relating to an interest in land contains also stipu- 

 lations for the mode in which the straw and manure upon the premises 

 was to be valued, the Court of King's Bench held that the agreement 

 was entire, and that the mode of valuation could not be validly altered 

 by a subsequent parol agreement between the parties [Harvog v. Grah- 



