46S EIGHTS OF ASSIGNEE OF MORTGAGOR. 



Eaper, 27 L. J. (N. S.), Q. ?.. 200). Tn namh'Jl v. yy/^^f/?, the defend- 

 aut was clearly liable for his misivpi-pseutation as to his being autho- 

 rised to order stone in the name of the clergyman who was the head 

 of the TTerneth Church Committee, even though he were honestly 

 mistaken. In Smoitf v. Ihunj (10 M. & W. 1), there was no repre- 

 sentation at all and no assumption of authority by the defendant, and 

 the iilaintift was misled by a circumstance equally without the know- 

 ledge and beyond the control of both parties. The plaintiff, like the 

 defendant, did not know that the defendant's husband was dead in 

 foreign parts, and the defendant was therefore not liable for goods 

 supplied to her after his death, but before information of his death 

 had been received. 



Guarantee of solvoicy of tenant ly house-agent. — Where a house-agent 

 is employed to let a house, and charges 5 per cent, commission on 

 letting it, it is a question for the jury whether he undertakes to use 

 reasonable care to ascertain that the person to whom he lets it is in 

 solvent circumstances {Heys v. Tindatl). 



Assignee of morigagor letting tenant into possession. — The assignee 

 of a mortgagor, who has let a tenant into possession after the mort- 

 gage, can sue such tenant for use and occupation, notwithstanding 

 notice from the mortgagee to pay rent. A mortgagor in possession 

 agreed to grant a lease to the defendant with the privity of the mort- 

 gagees, who, however, were no party to the agreement ; the defendant 

 was let into possession under the agreement, and paid rent to the 

 mortgagor. The mortgagor then assigned to the plaintiflF, who sued 

 the defendant, after notice to him from the mortgagees to pay them the 

 rent, for use and occupation, and it was held that the action was main- 

 tainable ; and^^cr Martin B. : " The doctrine that a tenant shall not be 

 allowed to deny the title of his landlord is sound, and ought to be sup- 

 ])orted. It compels persons to perform their contracts until something 

 has taken place, which in justice ought to put an end to them. The 

 dictum in Goivldsworth v. Knight (11 M. & W. 337), supposed to be 

 contrary to that doctrine, was merely the expression of an opinion and 

 not duly considered." And ^;er Bramwell B. : " The sole question is 

 whether the mere notice was sufficient to terminate the estoppel arising 

 by tenancy ? We think it was not. That the assignee of a reversion 

 on a parol tenancy can sue for the rent has been held in Standen v. 

 Christmas (10 Q. B. 135, 16 L. J. Q. B. 205)," {Hickman v. Machin). 



Fixtures. — M. being owner of certain land and premises, mortgaged 

 them in fee, but still continued in possession of the mortgaged premises 

 on which, subsequently to such mortgage, he put up and used for the 

 purposes of his trade a steam engine and boiler, also a hay-cutter and 



