450 ACTION FOR DOUBLE VALUE. 



und for double value are distinct causes of action within that statute ' 

 {Wickham \. Lee). Doulle rent is given by statute 11 Geo. II. c. 19, 

 s. 18, which was enacted to meet the difficulty which landlords had with 

 tenants who had power to determine their own leases, and refused to 

 give lip possession pursuant to their notice, when the landlord had 

 agreed with another tenant for the same [Johnstone v. Huddlestone). 

 A tenant who after having given notice to quit hotds over for a year, paying 

 doulte rent, according to stat. 11 Geo. II. c. 19, s. 18, may quit at the end 

 of such year icifhouf fresh notice (Booth v. Macfarlane). Patteson J. held 

 that if a landlord allows his tenant to hold over above a year without 

 taking any step to recover the premises, he is not entitled to the benefit 

 of 1 Geo. IV. c. 87, s. 1, which "enables landlords more speedily to 

 recover possession of lands and tenements unlawfully held over by 

 tenants " {Doe dem. Thomas v. Field). 



It is only the lessor or the person ivho stands in the situation of land- 

 lord, and not any one icho derives a title from the lessor, who can, under 

 4 Geo. II, c. 28, s. 1, sue a tenant for double value tvhen there has been 

 a holding over after determination of the tenancy ; and therefore where 

 A. B., who had let certain premises to the defendant, under a letting 

 which expired on the 25th March, 1858, and had required the de- 

 fendant, by notice in writing, to deliver up possession on that day, 

 afterwards, but before the end of such tenancy demised the premises 

 to the plaintiff from such 25th of March, 1858, and the defendant held 

 over without paying rent to or otherwise recognising the plaintiff as 

 landlord, it was held that the plaintiff was not the proper person to 

 sue the defendant for double value under such statute {Blatchford^. 

 Cole). 



Where there is a demise to two co-tenants for a term, and one holds over 

 after the expiration of the term ivithout the other's assent, the other is not 

 liable for rent becoming due during such holding over (Drapery. Crofts). 

 But in Christy v. Tancred — one co-tenant, who assented to the other's 

 holding over after the expii-ation of the term, was held equally liable 

 with him in use and occupation, so long as the latter continued actually 

 to occupy, but no longer. 



A tenant Jiolding over cfter the expiration of a lease for years may be 

 taken to hold upon any of the terms of such former lease as are consistent 

 with a yearly tenancy, and whether he does so hold or not is a question 

 for the jury on the facts proved ; and a covenant in a lease for years 

 ending at Michaelmas that the tenant shall and may retain and sow 40 

 acres of wheat on the 213 acres of arable land demised, at the seed-time 

 next after the end of the term, and have the on-stand thereof till the 

 harvest then next following, with the use of the premises for thrashing, 



