Mnylish Land Law. 
353 = 57 
afe in the hands of the landlord, with whose family he and his 
ave been so long connected. The law, however, as recently 
ettled, has not left these patriarchal relations intact. 
The customs of the country, upon which the rights of both Local customs, 
indlord and tenant, in the case of yearly tenancies by parol, so 
irgely depend, are so varied and uncertain in their nature, that 
0 attempt at stating their general effect with precision could be 
uccessful. Strictly speaking, they must be local in their opera- 
ion — to distinguish them from the common law — they must 
ive existed from time immemorial, and they must have been 
oluntary in their origin. But this is all that can be universally 
redicated of their essence ; and the number of manifold forms 
1 which they exist, to modify the rights of lessor and lessee, is 
) great as to render their general discussion quite unmanage- 
ble. The most striking example of the effective operation of 
lis unwritten law has been already alluded to, and when mere 
iistom can of its own strength result in converting a precarious 
olding at the will of the landlord into a comparatively secure 
nd legal tenancy, that can only be determined at the end of 
ich successive year, it would seem that scarcely any limit is 
) be assigned to the possible results of the same agency, 
ittempts, however, to extend the implied rights of the yearly 
;nant still further upon the same principle have proved in- 
(Tectual. It was decided in 1778, that a general demise for a 
'im not specified could not be extended by an alleged custom 
) a three-yearly tenancy, or to any term longer than a year 
hich was required by the course of husbandry usual in the dis- 
ict ; and in that case the Court said that to allow such an im- 
lication would be to repeal in many cases some of the most 
nportant provisions of the Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3), 
hich requires writing for the creation or transfer of any interest 
1 land, except a demise for a term not exceeding three years at a 
■nt amounting to at least two-thirds of the full improved value 
Roe V. Lees, 2 W. Bl. 1171). Even in that case, it was inti- 
lated that it was not impossible that a general tenancy might in 
)me cases be regarded as a holding from two years to two years, 
ithout a special provision to that effect, where that period was 
3cessary to allow such a crop as was contemplated by the parties 
' come to maturity, as in the case of liquorice or madder. The 
ises referred to must be so exceptional, that the dictum is of 
ttle practical importance, but when it is remembered that in 
')50, a custom that a lessee for years should retain the land for 
xlf a year beyond his term was held bad and invalid, the 
lange that 200 years had brought about in the spirit of the law 
■comes abundantly manifest [Wliite v. Saycr, Palm. 213). It 
ay be mentioned here, as a further proof of the strength to 
2 C 2 
I 
