422 FALSE REPRESENTATIOX BY TENANT. 



on the ground of defence set up, or of his requiring him not further to 

 proceed. Wi'ight answered repudiating his liability to Collen, and the 

 bill was dismissed on the ground of defence set up. On a case stating 

 the above circumstances, with liberty to the Court to draw inferences 

 of fact, the Court of Queen's Bench held that Collen was entitled to 

 maintain an action against Wright's executors, as for a breach of 

 promise, that Wright had the authority, and that he might recover in 

 such action damages for the expenses of the Chancery proceedings, it 

 not appearing that he had instituted thtm incautiously, and they being 

 therefore damages naturally resulting ft-om the misrepresentation made 

 by Wright. This ruling was confirmed by the Exchequer Chamber 

 {CocJcliirn C.J. diss.). 



In Ley v. Peter, in which the action was brought to recover posses- 

 sion of an undivided third of a piece of land called Barn Meadow, the 

 defendant's grandfather had been owner of two undivided thirds of 

 such meadow, and held the other third under a lease, which expired in 

 1818. The father of defendant and defendant succeeded in their 

 turns ; and at the time the action was brought, the defendant was 

 owner of the two-thirds, and occupied the whole, no rent having been 

 paid since 1818. The only evidence relied upon for the plaintiff was a 

 letter of the land-agent who managed the defendant's property, written 

 within twenty years of the action being brouglit, in which he said the 

 defendant " would no doubt accept a lease of Ley's one-third at a fair 

 rack rent." It was held, after a verdict for the plaintiff in ejectment 

 for the one-third, by the Court of Exchequer, first, that this was not an 

 aclcnoivhdgment of title within 3 & 4 Will lY., c. 4, s. 14, as not leing 

 sir/ned hj the person in possessio)i, ltd only by an agont ; and secondly 

 {Martin B. diss.), that the land-agent had no authority by virtue of his 

 employment as such to write such a letter ; and thirdly, that the letter 

 was no evidence of a tenancy at the will of the plaintiff. 



Where a tenant from year to year, having no authority from his land- 

 lord to let in a new tenant, falsely represented to the plaintiff that he 

 had, and thereby induced him to pay £100 for allo\nng him to enter 

 into possession, and also to take the stock at a valuation ; but the land- 

 lord refusing to accept him as tenant, he had to leave after a year's 

 occupation, and it was left doubtful on the evidence, whether, on the 

 whole, the plaintiff had become a loser or a gainer ; and the defendant 

 had paid the first half of the year's rent to the landlord ; the jury, in 

 an action for the false representation, were directed by Wightman J. 

 that they were at hberty, finding for the plaintiff, to give a sum less 

 than the £100, or even nominal damages ; and in a cross action by the 

 defendant against the plaintiff in that action for half-a-year's rent, they 



