LESSEE FOE A TERM OF YEARS. 435 



that a lease, dated January 19, 1851, of certain premises to hold from 

 December 25th, 1849, for and daring the full term of fourteen years 

 then next ensuing, containing a proviso that either the lessor or Ussee may 

 determine the lease at the expiration of the first seven years, by six months' 

 notice to quit, is a lease determinable at the expiration of seven years 

 from December 25th, 1849, on due notice being given. 



Where a tenant entered under an agreement for a seven years' lease, 

 tvMch was never executed, it was held by the Court of Common Pleas 

 that he was not entitled to notice to quit at the end of seven years. 

 Within the seven years he could not have been turned out without 

 notice ; but at the end of the seven years the contract itself gives him 

 sufficient notice {Doe dem. Tilt v. Stratton). The point is, in effect, 

 decided in Doe dem. Bloomfield v. Smith, and Dje dem. Older sha to v. 

 Breach. 



If a lease le granted for seven, fourteen, or twenty-one years the 

 lessee has the option at which of the above periods the lease shall 

 determine {Dann v. Spurrier). The Court of King's Bench fully 

 acknowledged the authority of this decision of the Court of Common 

 Pleas in Doe dem. Webb v. Dixon ; and held that, under a lease for 

 fourteen or seven years, the lessee only has the option of determin- 

 ing it at the end of the first seven years, every doubtful grant being 

 construed in favour of the grantee. 



Where a tenant for life snakes a lease for years to comynence on a certain 

 day, and dies (before the expiration of the lease) in the middle of a year, 

 and the remainderman receives rent from the lessee (who continues in 

 possession, but not under a fi'esh lease) for two years together on the 

 days of payment mentioned in the lease, this is evidence from which an 

 agreement may be presumed between the remainderman and the lessee, 

 that the lessee should continue to hold from the day and according 

 to the terms of the original demise, so that notice to qiiit ending on that 

 day is proper {Doe dem. Jordan v. Ward). 



A 2)erson who held ylebe lands as tenant to one mc^mibent, and con- 

 tinues in possession under his successor, without disturbance, must be 

 presumed to hold as a tenant to the latter, and cannot be dispossessed 

 without notice to quit {Doe dem. Cedes v. SomervUle). But Littlcdale J. 

 held, in Doe dem. Kirby v. Carter, that the incumbent of a living may 

 sustain ejectment against parties in possession of tlie glehe lands, though 

 tlie current year of a teruincy from year to year created by his predecessor 

 is unexpired, as such new vicar had a right to immediate possession, 

 notwithstanding the tenancy recognised by his predecessor. Here the 

 plaintiff gave in evidence a notice to quit from the preceding vicar, 

 which had expired previous to the date of demise, and the defendant 



r F 2 



