43i INSUFFICIENT NOTICE TO QUIT. 



Where a tenant from year to year gave his landlord, who accepted it, 

 a written notice to quit at Midsummer, and then, on discovering that his 

 tenancy did not expire till Christmas, sent another notice accordingly, 

 and refused to quit the premises until the latter date, the Court of 

 Exchequer held, on an ejectment being brought, that the tenancy was 

 not determined by notice, inasmuch as it was not good as a notice to 

 quit, and could not operate as a surrender by a note in writing within 

 the Statute of Frauds, the first being to take effect infuturo {Doe dem. 

 Murrell v. Mil ward). The case of Aldenburgh v. Peaple was much 

 shaken by the decision of the Court of Exchequer in Weddall v. Capes ; 

 for although the precise point is not there determined, yet it is clear 

 that the Court were of opinion that the instrument could not operate 

 as a surrender in futuro. Bcrsell v. Lansherg, where it was held by 

 the Court of Queen's Bench that a verbal acquiescence by the landlord 

 on receiving from a tenant from year to year a verbal notice to quit 

 determinmg within the six months is not sufficient, and does not operate 

 as a surrender of the term, fell directly within the authority of Johnstone 

 V. Huddlestone. 



In Doe dem. Plumer v. Mainlvj, the premises were demised under a 

 Avritten agreement dated August 4th, 1845, " the tenancy to be from 

 year to year from Michaelmas next," at the rent of £55, payable half- 

 yearly, "except the last 1ml f year, which portion of rent shall be paid 

 on or before the first of August in that year, and to be deemed then 

 due for all legal remedies for recovering rent in arrear " : tenant " to 

 allow the landlord or incoming tenant in the last year to enter on 1st 

 May, to make fallows and carry out the manure " ; for which com- 

 ])eusation was to be paid, &c. : " tenant to have the use of the barns 

 for stacking and thrashing the crops of the last year till the 1st day of 

 ]\Iay after the tenancy." Defendant came into possession, and on the 

 26th of March, 1846, he was served with a notice to quit at Michael- 

 mas, 1846. It was contended on his behalf, that, taking all the terms 

 of the agreement together, they necessarily imported that the tenancy 

 was to last beyond the first year ; but under the direction of WiMe 

 C.J., a verdict was returned for the plaintiff. The Court of Queen's 

 Bench refused a rule for a new trial on the ground of misdirection. 



If a landlord lease for seven years hy parol, and agrees that the tenant 

 shall enter at Lady Day and quit at Candlemas, though the lease be 

 void by the Statute of Frauds as to the duration of the term, the tenant 

 holds under the terms of the lease in other respects, and therefore the 

 landlord can only put an end to the tenancy at Candlemas {Due dem. 

 Rigcje v. Bell). 



It was decided l^y the Court of Queen's Bench in Bird v. Baker, 



