432 NOTICE TO JOINT TENANTS. 



time after his death are entitled to remove them without incurring any 

 liability for either dilapidations or Avaste, provided the garden is restored 

 to its fomier condition (Martin v. Eoe). 



A notice to quit, signed hy one of several joint tenants, purjwrting to he 

 given on behalf of them all, is sufficient to determine a tenancy from year 

 to year as to all (Doe dem. Aslin v. Summcrsett). 



And so a notice to quit given hy a person previously authorized hy one 

 of several lessors, joint tenants, determines the tenancy as to all {Doe 

 dem. Kindersley v. Hughes). A receiver appointed hy the Court of Chan- 

 cery, with a general authority to let the lands to tenants from year to 

 year, has also authority to determine such tenancies by a regular notice 

 to quit {Doe v. Read). But per ParJce J., a mere receiver of rents, as such, 

 has no authority to determine a tenancy {Doe dem. Mann v. Walters). 

 And per Patteson J., an agent to receive and let has authority to deter- 

 mine a tenancy {Doe v. Mizcm) ; but a notice to ([uit given hy an agent of 

 an agent is not sufficient without evidence of an authority to give notice, 

 or a recognition by the principal {Doe v. Rohinson). Lord Ellenhorough 

 C.J. ruled that notice to quit may he given to a tenant hy parol ; and 

 where there are two tenants of premises held in common, notice to one 

 is sufficient {Doe dem. Macartney, Lord, v. CrieJc). And, again, if a 

 notice to quit is directed to a tenant hy a wrong Christian name, and he 

 keei)S it, it is a waiver of the misdirection, and the lessor may recover 

 on it, if there was no other tenant of the name {Doe v. Spiller). 



On a parol demise of rent, to take place from the following " Lady 

 Day," evidence of the custom of the counfrg was admitted, to show that 

 " Old Lady Day " was meant {Doe dem. Hall v. Benson). And see 

 Doe V. Hoplcinson, decided on the authority of this case ; and Furley 

 V. Wood, where Lord Kenyon C.J. admitted proof of the custom of the 

 country that a general holding in Kent from " Michaelmas " meant Old 

 Michaelmas Day. In Doe dem. Spicer v. Lea, where the letting was by 

 deed, the Court allowed of no extrinsic evidence to explain the time of 

 iiolding stated therein ; and ruled that since the new style (Jan. 1, 

 1752) to hold " from the Feast of St. Michael " meant Xew Michaelmas, 

 and that, considering the tenant's year to end at New Michaelmas, the 

 notice to quit at Old Michaelmas, though given half-a-year before New 

 Michaelmas, was bad ; for the notice mu.st Ijo to quit at tlie end of the 

 tenant's year, and if it might be given to quit twelve days afterwards, it 

 might as well be at any other time. 



In the case of Doe dem. Slrirktand v. Spence, there was an agreement 

 by a tenant of a i'anu " to enter on the tillage land at Candlemas last, 

 and on the house and all the other premises at Lady Day following, and 

 that when he left the farm he should quit the same, according to the 



