436 TWO YEAIIS NOTICE TO QUIT. 



cndcfivonrcd to show that his tenancy did not expire at the time to 

 Avhich the notice had relation. The letters of institution reciting the 

 cession of his predecessor were su^cient pri/ma facie of the cession being 

 duly made, especially as it was acted on, and a rule for a new trial on 

 the ground of misdirection was refused. 



In TooTcer v. Smith an mjrmncnt for a lease coniaincd a stipuJation that 

 the tenancy should continue until after two years' notice to quit had leen 

 given. The tenant occupied the farm, paid rent for some years, but no 

 lease was executed, and the Court of Exchequer held that it could not 

 be implied that the stipulation as to the two years' notice to quit was 

 one of the terms under which the tenant held. The farm was to be 

 managed according to the four or five-course system— «'.p., with respect 

 to the five-course, not less than two-fifths of the arable land to be 

 always in sown grass and a two-years' ley, so as to be in proper 

 preparation for wheat, &c. ; and with respect to the four-course, not 

 less than one-fourth of the arable land to be always in sown grass, &c. 

 The one party to give the other two-years' notice in writing of his 

 intention to put an end to the tenancy ; such notice to be given on or 

 before the 29th day of September, and to expire on the 29th day of 

 September, which should happen next before the expiration of two full 

 years after such notice should have been given. The agreement con- 

 taining these terms, and signed by one Pearson for the plaintiflF, and 

 by the defendant, was produced. It was not under seal, and when 

 first produced was unstamped, but was subsequently stamped as an 

 agreement. Possession had been taken by the defendant under the 

 agreement, who occupied the farm, and paid rent for it for some years, 

 till his tenancy was determined by a two-years' notice, expiring Michael- 

 mas, 1856. The plaintiif averred that the farm had not been cultivated 

 according to the four or five-course system, but that large quantities 

 of tlifi arable land had been kept in wheat ; and the defendant pleaded, 

 intei' alia, that he never held the farm on the terms mentioned in the 

 declaration. Martin B. ruled that the contract in the declaration was 

 not proved, and nonsuited the plaintilF. 



His Lordship, on a motion for a new trial, referred to Tress v. Savage, 

 where Coleridge J. pointed out that the tenancy to be implied was a 

 yearly tenancy, determinable by six months' notice to quit ; and added, 

 *' There is nothing inconsistent with a yearly tenancy in stipulations for 

 the cultivation of lands upon any system the parties may choose to agree 

 upon. It is a fallacy to assume that the term as to the four-course 

 Bystem of husbandry cannot be implied. It is nothing more than an 

 agreement, that during each year that the tenancy shall continue, a cer- 

 tain cour.se of cultivation shall be pursued." And jjpr rollock C.B. : " A 



