418 ESTOPPEL BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT. 



as a lease, or passed any interest, and it eventually went off on another 

 point. There are, then, no authorities to show that an instrument exe- 

 cuted by the tenant only can be a demise. It is therefore an agreement. 

 Aiid the remaining question is, whether it requires a stamp, as being re- 

 specting a subject-matter above the value of £20. I think it does not; 

 the subject-matter, I tliink, is measured by the whole amount of rent to 

 be paid, not by the total value of the land in respect of which it is to be 

 paid ; and here the right of occupation is only for half-a-year, and the rent 

 £10. Reliance was placed in the argument on the exception exempting 

 leases at rack rent, under £5 per annum ; but that, I think, is to be ex- 

 plained by considering the subject-matter as the whole rent to be paid, 

 which for a term of years might well exceed £20, although under £5 per 

 annum. I think, therefore, that the decision of Williams J. in Mwlow 

 V. Thompson was right." 

 The following document — 



^^ August 2nd, according to Mr. HacMfs request, the land at BJaclc- 

 forclhy, under Mr. Elstead, I will he hound for till next Lady- 

 day. Signed, ''J. GLOVER:' 



which was tendered in evidence in an action by Glover against Hackett 

 for money paid to Mr. Elstead, was held on the authority of Ramshottom 

 V. Mortley to be a guarantee, and to require an agreement stamp {Glover 

 \. Hackett). But qiacre whether under 19 & 20 Vict. c. 97 (the Mercan- 

 tile Law Amendment Act) the document by itself was one which would 

 satisfy the Statute of Frauds (Jh.). 



The doctrine of estoppel hetween landlord and tenant is founded upon 

 the principle that a lessee having accepted a lease may not plead to the 

 action of his lessor nil habuit in tenementis. But the lessee may plead to 

 such an action, that the lessor had an interest at the date of the lease, 

 but that such interest had determined before the alleged cause of action 

 arose. Therefore if a termor affect to grant a lease for a term exceed- 

 ing his own term in duration, and to reserve an annual rent, that would 

 opei'ate as an assignment of his term, and there would be no estoppel 

 between him and the person to whom he made such assignment ; and 

 accordingly, it would be doubtful whether the assignor would have any 

 remedies for recovering the rent {Lcmgford v. Sehnes). The stat. 4 Geo. 

 IV. c. 28, does not give power to distrain for such a rent {ih.). 



By an agreement in writing A. agreed to demise to B. certain prremises, 

 which ivere then in lease to C., and B. undertooh to procure a surrender of 

 the existing lease from C, and to accept the new lease. C. having after- 

 wards refused to surrender, A. filed a bill against B. for sj^ecific perform- 

 ance with a modification ; and it was held on dimurrer by Wood V.C., 



