470 LIABILITY FOR DOUBLE VALUE. 



Tcnanis in ancient demesne liable to pay county rates. — Tenants of 

 land in ancient demesne are not by reason of their tenure exempted from 

 liability to pay county rates {Reg. v. Inhahihints of Aylesford). 



Ecceipt of rent from third party evidence of surrender hy operation of 

 taw. — It was held by Blaclchuni J., in Laivrance \. Faux, that receipts 

 for rent received by a landlord from a third party were held evidence of 

 a surrender by operation of law, putting an end to the liability of the 

 former tenant. 



The holding over to entitle to double value must be contumacious. — B., a 

 tenant to S., after the death of S. accepted a fresh term from his devisee. 

 Ke afterwards found that the heir-at-law of S. disputed the will, and 

 from the circumstances of the case, he reasonably and bond fide believed 

 that the devisee had no title, and that the land belonged to the heu'-at- 

 law. B. thereupon refused to pay rent to the devisee, who gave him 

 notice to quit. As B. did not quit at the expiration of his term, the 

 devisee, who had made out her title to be good, brought an action 

 against B., under statute 4 Geo. II. c. 28, s. 1, for double value. It was 

 held by the Court of I^xchequer that to enable a landlord to recover 

 double value under 4 Geo. II. c. 21, the holding over must be contuma- 

 cious. A holding over under a mistaken belief that a third person who 

 claimed the reversion is entitled, is not sufficient to support the action, 

 even although the tenant was let into possession by the landlord, and 

 the third person does not claim through, but adversely to him. This 

 was decided on the judicial construction given to the statute in Wright 

 V. Smith (6 Esp. 203), and Suulsbg v. J\^ei'ing (9 East. 310). This de- 

 cision was affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber, which considered that 

 the action was not maintainable, and that to come within the statute 

 the holding over must be with the consciousness on the part of the 

 tenant that he has no right to retain possession {Sivinfen v. Bacon). 



Ejectment by mortgagor. — A mortgagor before mortgage let a farm to 

 P. as tenant from year to year. After the mortgage, P. let the defend- 

 ant into possession in his stead, and informed the mortgagor of the 

 fact, and the mortgagor subsequently received rent from the hands of 

 the defendant. It was held that the tenant's term was still in P., there 

 being no effectual surrender, and consequently that the mortgagee 

 could not maintain ejectment against the defendant without a notice to 

 quit. And per Martin B. : " There can be no assignment of a term 

 except by deed, and there cannot be a surrender by operation of law 

 without the assent of all parties " {Trent v. Hunt). 



Action by one tenant in common against another. — Where one tenant 

 in common brings an action against his co-teuant, and the declaration 

 takes no notice of the plaintiff's limited interest, but alleges an e.xpul- 



