AGREEMENT TO LET. 411 



sistent with the supposition of a present demise ; but in later cases a 

 different opinion has prevailed. As to the construction, Staniforth v. 

 Fox is a case very near this in words and in principle." 



Upon an inquisition on a writ of elegit, proof of possession or receipt 

 of the rent of the land by the party is prima facie evidence of the title, 

 and where a jury, notwithstanding such evidence, found that the party 

 had no lands, the Court of Common Pleas set aside the finding, and 

 directed the sheriff to take a new inquisition {Barnes v. Harding). A 

 tenant hy elegit Ms a right to distrain without attornment {Lloyd v. Davies). 

 An attornment by a tenant of land to a receiver appointed by Chancery 

 to collect the rents, and payment of rent to such receiver, create a 

 tenancy by estoppel between the tenant and receiver, but do not enure 

 to enable the person who is found ultimately to have the legal title to 

 the land to treat the tenant as his tenant, and to distrain for rent 

 {Evans v. Matthias). Where a mortgagee gave notice to the tenants of the 

 mortgaged property not to pay their rents to the mortgagor^ lut to himself, 

 it was held by Sir J. Romilly M.R. that he was liable to the mortgagor 

 for any consequential loss, as it is his duty either to take possession 

 himself or to leave the mortgagor in possession {Heale v. M^ Murray). If 

 a lease is in the hands of a tenant, and it appears that no counterpart 

 can be found, the Court will permit the landlord to inspect and take a 

 copy of it {Doe dem. v. Slight). 



The terms of a lease may be proved by oral admissions {Smith v. 

 Howard)', and if a landlord gives a receipt for rent last due, it is presum- 

 able that all former rent has been paid (Gilb. Ev. 157). 



He who agrees to let agrees to give possession, and not merely to give 

 the chance of a law-suit; and if he fails to do so, the lessee may recover 

 damages against him, and need not bring ejectment {Coe v. Clay). On 

 an agreement for a lease " with all usual and reasonable covenants," a 

 covenant not to underlease or assign is implied where the custom is not 

 generally against it {Follcingham v. Croft). In the Exchequer Chamber, 

 on error from the Court of Common Pleas, it was held that the word 

 ''demise" in a lease implies a covenant for title and a covenant for quiet 

 enjoyment ; but both branches of such implied covenant are restrained 

 by an express covenant for quiet enjoyment {Line v. Stejjhenson). In 

 every contract for the sale of an existing lease there is an implied under- 

 taking by the seller (if the contrary be not expressed) to make out the 

 lessor's title to demise ; and without showing such title, the seller 

 cannot maintain an action at law against the buyer for refusing to 

 complete the purchase {Souter v. Drake). But, on a contract for the sale 

 of an agreement for a lease it is not an implied condition that the lessor 

 has power to grant the lease {Kintrea v. Preston). Alderson B. tlius 



