421. MEANING OF "DEMISE." 



The advertisement that the farm was to be let at next Michaelmas 

 accordingly appeared. On the 9th of July, 1835, the defendant signed 

 the following memorandum : " Mr. Hunt has explained that his offer 

 for the farm was £400 only, and subject to this correction he assents 

 to the terras proposed in Mr. W.'s (the agent's) letter.— e/. Himtr A 

 ]\Ir. Catlin made an application for the farm, but the defendant refused 

 to allow him to see it, and he made no offer ; and in consequence of the 

 defendant's refusal to leave at Michaelmas, 1835, this action of eject- 

 ment was brought. It was contended for the defendant, that under 

 tliis agreement the tenancy continued till Michaelmas, 1836, but GazeJee 

 J. refused to nonsuit the plaintiff. A rule to enter a nonsuit was dis- 

 charged, and the Court held that it was a necessarily implied condition 

 of the agrcemeut that the tenant should allow persons applying for the 

 farm to go over it to inspect it, and that the tenant having before the 

 1st of August refused to perform that condition, the contract was put 

 an end to. 



The u'ord " demise " does not carrij ivith it any imjjlied undertaking 

 that the land shall be reasonahlij fit for the purpose for which it is taken; 

 the law merely annexes to it a condition that the party demising has a 

 good title to the premises, and that the lessee shall not be evicted 

 during the term {Sutton v. Temple). Here the defendant took the 

 eatage of a field in the parish of Skirbeck from the plaintiff. It con- 

 sisted of 24 acres of eddish, and the agreement was signed on Septem- 

 ber 8, 1842, for £40, half to be paid at Boston Mart, on the 12th of 

 December, and the rest on the 6th of April. The defendant stocked 

 the eddish with 15 beasts, four of which died on October 2nd, from the 

 poisonous effects of old refuse paint, which lay open in a manure heap 

 in the field. The plaintiff was informed of this, but took no steps to 

 remove the manure, and the defendant fenced it off, and turned in more 

 beasts, four of whom died from the poison above mentioned in a fort- 

 night. The defendant declined any longer to stock the eddish, and 

 told the plaintiff she might do what she pleased with it, but she did not 

 resume possession till after the 6th of April. There was no evidence to 

 show that the plaintiff was aware of the state of the eddish when she let 

 it. Hence it was contended that the defendant could not be made 

 liable, inasmuch as the eddish being wholly unfit for the purpose of 

 which it was taken, viz., the food of beasts, the defendant could not be 

 said to have had any beneficial use or enjoyment of it. 



Lord Ahiiujer C.B. left it to the jury, who found tliat the beasts were 

 poisoned by the paint, and a verdict under his lordship's direction was 

 entered for the plaintiff for £12, that being a rateable proportion of the 

 rent for the time that the defendant actually occupied, leave being 



