LIABILITY OF REVERSIONER. 453 



and ascertained from the then current year's averages which were taken 

 in the month of January in every year under and by virtue of the 

 Tithe Commutation Act, G & 7 Will. IV. c. 71, s. 56," which is the 

 result of the sales " during seven years ending on the Thursday next 

 before Christmas-day then next preceding " — it was held that the rent 

 must be computed according to such septennial average so published 

 in each year, and not, as the defendant contended, according to the 

 average price in any one year of the term {Kendall v. Barker). 



A nuisance of a permanent character having been created on land in 

 the occupation of a tenant from year to year, the reversioner is liable 

 for damage caused by it, if it be shown that since the creation of the 

 nuisance, and before the damage, he might have determined the tenancy 

 and did not, such continuing of the tenancy being equivalent to a re- 

 letting ; and it is no defence that he had no notice or knowledge of the 

 existence of the nuisance. {Gaiuhj v. Tuhher, 33 L. J. (N. S.) Q, B., 

 p. 151. 



In the Duke of 3Iarllwrovgh v. Oslorn, 33 L. J. (N. S.) Q. B.,p. 148, 

 it was held that a clause in the lease " the tenant to perform each year 

 for the Duke of Marlborough, at the rate of one day's team-work, with 

 two horses for every £50 of rent when required (except at hay and corn 

 harvest) without being paid for the same," extends to other than 

 agricultural work, such as hauling coals ; but it does not oblige the 

 tenant to find a cart, plough, or other vehicle or machine necessary for 

 the performance of the work. 



In the case of Crouch v. Tregonning, 7 L. R. Ex. 88, plaintiflp took a 

 farm under lease for seven, fourteen, or twenty-one years from 1858. The 

 lease contained a covenant not to assign or under-let without the written 

 consent of the landlord. The plaintiff, however, sold all his interest in 

 the farm to the defendant by a memorandum of agreement, dated March 

 10th, 1869, and the defendant entered into occupation in the following 

 May. This agreement was not under seal ; nothing said in it about 

 payment of rent, and the landlord's license was not obtained. The de- 

 fendant paid the rent to the landlord's agent in plaintill:"'s name, and 

 the receipts were also made out in his name. In March, 1870, the 

 defendant gave the landlord notice to quit at Michaelmas, 1870, and he 

 left the farm at that time. The farm remained empty from Michaelmas, 

 1870, to March, 1871, and the plaintiff having paid this half-year's rent 

 to the landlord sought to recover the amount from the defendant. 



It was held, however, that he was not entitled to recover, there not 

 having been any promise to indemnity the plaintiff against rent accruing 

 after the defendant's occupation had ceased, nor any such relation of 

 landlord and tenant existing between the parties as would entitle the 



