on their account, and had previously given notices to quit to other tenants, which had been acted upon without objection; the court held that the notice was not sufficient. Tindal, C. J. observed that the person who gave the notice was merely the *agent of an agent, there should have been more evidence (he *867 was far from saying that there was not some evidence) either of an original authority from the mortgagees to this person, or of a subsequent recognition by them of his acts." If the joint lessors be partners in trade, a notice to quit by Churchone in the name of all is sufficient. Notice to quit to a tenant wardens. of lands originally devised to the churchwardens of a parish and their successors in trust, signed by the rector and churchwardens, requiring him to deliver up the premises to the rector and churchwardens for the time being, is insufficient; for it is uncertain in its intent, as there were no such persons as the rector and churchwardens known to the law as a continuing body, like a body corporate, and as the defendant could not know to whom he was to deliver possession. The steward of a corpo- Corporaration may give notice to quit without authority under seal, and tion. if the corporation afterwards bring ejectment upon such notice, it will be a sufficient recognition of his authority." A receiver appointed by the court of Chancery with a general authority to let the lands from year to year, is a sufficiently authorised agent to give notice to quit. the tenant. 4.-To whom notice should be given.] The notice should Notice in all cases be served on the tenant of the person serving it; if should be the premises be underlet, the sub-tenancy must be determined served on either by a notice from the lessor to the lessee, or from the lessee to the undertenant, notice from the lessor to the undertenant is insufficient, there being no proof of contract between them. Where the service was upon a relation of the undertenant on the premises, it was held to be insufficient, although the notice was addressed to the original tenant." Where a lease contained a power to determine the term by giving six months' notice "to the tenant;" held, that a notice directed to and served upon T. M., who resided on the premises and described himself as the servant of his brother, the tenant, whose name was J. M., was insufficient, though in a subsequent conversation with the lessors of the plaintiff the tenant said "those notices were not directed to me, I did not regard them," which amounted to an admission that he had received the notice.5 Doe d. Rhodes v. Robinson, MS. C. P. T. T. 1837. Doe d. Elliott v. Hulme, 2 M. & Byl. 433. (17 Eng. C. L. 136.) 'Doe d. Brooks v. Fairclough, 6 M. & S. 40. Roe d. Dean of Rochester v. Peirce, 2 Camp. 96. • Wilkinson v. Colley, Burr. 2694. Doe d. Marsack v. Read, 12 East, 57. 'Doe d. Mitchell v. Levi, Adams, 130. Roe v. Wiggs, 2 N. R. 330. Pleasant d. Hayton v. Binson, 14 East, 234. Doe d. Exeter, Corporation of, v. Mitchell, MS. Coram Patteson, J., Sum. Assiz. Devon., confirmed in Q. B. M. T. 1837. Where A. had been tenant of certain premises, and upon his *868 *leaving them B. took possession; held, that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it might be presumed that he came in as assignee of A., although he never paid rent, and that notice to quit was rightly given to B. Mode of serving. The notice end of the current If two tenants hold premises in common, notice to quit addressed to all and served upon one of them is sufficient." Where a corporation is tenant, notice to quit should be addressed to the corporation, and served upon its officers. With respect to the mode of serving notice, it should in all cases be served on the tenant himself if possible, though personal service is not necessary; it will be sufficient if the notice be left with the wife or servant of the tenant at his usual residence, whether that be upon the demised premises or not, and its nature and contents explained at the time. But the mere leaving of a notice to quit at the tenant's house with a servant, without further proof of its having been explained to the servant, or that it came to the tenant's hands, has been held to be insufficient. 5.-At what time notice should expire.] In general, whenshould ex- ever a tenancy from year to year subsists, the notice to quit pire at the must be given half a year previous to that time of the year when the tenancy commenced, so that the notice may expire year of the at the end of the current year of the tenancy; thus, if the tenancy. tenancy commenced on the 1st of May, notice to quit should be given before the 1st of November, that is, six calendar months before the 1st of May; but if the tenancy commenced at any of the usual feasts, as at Michaelmas, Lady day, or Christmas day, the notice may be given prior to the corresponding feasts happening in the middle of the year, though six calendar months may not intervene between the two feast days, from feast to feast being the usual half year's computation; *869 *thus, notice on the 28th of September to quit on Lady day (the 25th of March) is sufficient. Notice to quit on or about the expiration of six calendar months from the 29th of September was held to be sufficient to determine a tenancy commencing on the 25th of March, the court ruling the word calendar to be surplusage; and where notice was given on the 27th of September to quit "at the expiration of the term Doe d. Morris v. Williams, 6 B. & C. 41. (13 Eng. C. L. 105.) 9 D. & R. 30. Doe d. Lord Macartney v. Crick, 5 Esp. 196. Doe d. Lord Bradford v. Watkins, 7 East, 551. Doe d. Lord Carlisle v. Woodman, 8 East, 228. a Jones d. Griffith v. Marsh, 4 T. R. 464. Doe d. Neville v. Dunbar, M. & M. 10. (22 Eng. C. L. 233.) Doe d. Blair v. Street, 2 Ad. & Ell. 329. (29 Eng. C. L. 108.) • Doe d. Buross v. Lucas, 5 Esp. 153. 'Roe d. Durant v. Doe, 6 Bing. 574. (19 Eng. C. L. 169.) Doe d. Harrop . Green, 4 Esp. 198. Howard v. Wemsley, 6 Esp. 53. for which you hold the same," Holroyd, J., permitted evidence to be given of a general custom of the country to let from Lady day to Lady day. The principle respecting notice to quit is equally applicable to houses as to land; they are both formed by one rule, for the same inconvenience might arise in one case as in the other, since the value of houses varies considerably at different periods of the year. But with respect to houses, the rule applies only in cases of a yearly tenancy. Where the letting is for a less Notice in period than a year, as in the case of lodgings, the custom for case of the most part requires the same space of time for the notice as lodgings. the period for which the lodgings were taken, as a month's notice when taken by the month, or a week's notice when taken by the week. The period of notice may however, be controlled by special agreement. A demise for one year only, and then to continue tenant afterwards and quit at a quarter's notice; and an agreement that the tenant should be subject to quit at three months' notice, have been held to be demises determinable at the end of any quarter; but a quarterly reservation of rent does not imply an agreement to dispense with the regular half year's notice to quit. The period of notice may Notice also be controlled by custom, as for instance by the custom of may be London, if *the tenant rents premises at a yearly rent under controlled 40s., he is entitled to a quarter's notice only, but if the rent *870 exceed that amount he is entitled to a half year's notice to quit.s by custom tenancy the pre The time when a tenancy from year to year commences and The comexpires, takes its date, in the absence of all other circumstances, mencefrom the time when the tenant actually enters upon the demised ment of a premises; but this general rule may be varied, both as to the may be commencement and expiration of the tenancy, either by express dated from agreement or legal inference. If no direct evidence can be the time of given as to the time of entry, the custom of the country is entry on prima facie evidence of the time; if there be no such custom, mises. the rent day is to be considered as the day of entry. If there be two rent days, the plaintiff's notice shall be presumed to be right till the defendant prove it to be wrong; and if the tenant enters about the usual day, the entry shall relate to such day.i But notice to quit is not primâ facie evidence that the tenancy commenced on the day specified in the notice, unless it be personally served on the defendant, and he reads it and does not * Doe d. Milnes v. Lamb, Adams, 316. Right d. Flower v. Darby, 1 T. R. 159. See ante, 861. Doe d. Parry v. Hazell, 1 Esp. 94. Wilson v. Abbott, 3 B. & C. 89. (10 Eng. C. L. 17.) See Doe d. Campbell v. Scott, 6 Bing. 362. (19 Eng. C. L. 104.) 4 M. & P. 20. Doe d. Pitcher v. Donovan, 1 Taunt. 555. But on a letting from year to year, to quit at a quarter's notice, the notice must expire at the period of the year when the tenancy commenced, id. S. C. 2 Camp. 78. 'Shirley v. Newman, 1 Esp. 266. Tyley v. Seed, Skin. 649. Doe d. Henderson v. Charnock, Peake, 4. Kemp v. Derrett, 3 Camp. 511. Kemp v. Derrett, 3 Camp. 510. 2 Stark. Ev. 300. Where the under a lease. object to it at the time of the service. Where the tenant at the time of the service complained that he had been harshly treated, but did not object to the notice, it was held that he was not thereby precluded from showing at the trial that the notice had been served too late. But where the defendant on application by the lessor's attorney stated his tenancy to have commenced on a particular day, and notice was given in conformity with his answer, it was held that he was concluded by it, as he had induced the plaintiff to act upon it. If a person is let into possession as a yearly tenant, and holding is afterwards takes a lease of the premises, and continues to hold the land after the lease has expired, the time of the expiration of the tenancy created by such holding over, will be regulated by the terms of the lease, and not by the time of the original entry. And the same rule applies to his assignees; the time *871 *of the expiration of their tenancies will be the same as if the original lessee had continued in possession; and the principle is the same if the tenant holds under a lease void by the statute of frauds; the time of the notice must be regulated by the void lease. So if a remainder-man receives rent from a person in possession under a lease granted by the tenant for life, but void against the remainder-man, the time of notice to quit will be regulated by the terms of the lease, and not by the time of the death of the tenant.5 Where the ters in the middle of a quarter. Where a tenant entered in the middle of a quarter, and paid tenant en rent for that half-quarter ending at Christmas, and afterwards paid rent half-yearly, at Midsummer and Christmas; it was held that his tenancy commenced from Christmas and not from the preceding half-quarter. But where the tenant entered in the middle of a quarter upon an agreement "to pay rent quarterly and for the half quarter," it was left to the jury whether the party was tenant from the quarter day prior to the time when he entered, or from the succeeding quarterday; and under the direction of Lord Ellenborough, C. J., the jury found that the tenancy commenced with the preceding quarter.i Where the Where the holding is from feast to feast, as from Michaelholding is mas to Michaelmas, it will, prima fucie, imply such feast acfrom feast cording to the new style; evidence, however, will be admitted to show, that according to the custom of the country, such Doe d. Ash v. Calvert, 2 Camp. 388. ter, 13 East, 406. Thomas v. Thomas, id. 647. Doe d. Fos Oakapple d. Green v. Copous, 4 T. R. 361. Doe d. Spicer v. Lea, 11 East, 312. 'Doe d. Rigge v. Bell, 5 T. R. 474. Doe d. Peacock v. Raffan, 6 Esp. 4. Doe d. Collins v. Weller, 7 T. R. 478. Right d. Flower v. Darby, 1 T. R. 159. Doe d. Holcomb v. Johnson, 6 Esp. 10. Savage v. Stapleton, 3 C. & P. 275. (14 Eng. C. L. 303.) iDoe d. Wadmore v. Selwyn, Adams, 145. j Doe d. Hinde v. Vince, 2 Camp. 256. tenancies commenced according to the old style, unless the demise be by deed, to hold from one feast to another; then it will be considered a tenancy according the the new style, and extrinsic evidence will not be admitted to show that the old style was intended, different Where a tenant enters upon different parts of the premises *872 at different periods of the year, if they be all contained in one Where demise, and it does not appear from any express agreement at there is an what time the tenancy was to commence; the rule is, that entry on notice to quit must be given with reference to the time of entry parts of upon that which is the principal and substantial part of the the predemised premises; and it is a question of fact for the jury, mises at which is the principal and which is the accessorial subject of times. the demise.d Where the landlord agreed to let the defendant a farm, to hold the arable land from the 13th of February, the pasture from the 5th of April, and the meadow from the 12th of May, at a yearly rent payable at old Michaelmas and old Lady-day it was held to be a tenancy from old Lady-day to old Ladyday; because the custom of most countries would have required the tenant to have quitted the arable and meadow lands on the 13th of February and 12th of May, without any special agreement, and a notice to quit at old Lady-day, delivered before old Michaelmas, was held sufficient. So where the agreement was that the tenant "should enter on the tillage land at Candlemas, and on the house and all other the premises at Lady-day following, and that when he left the farm he should quit the same according to the times of entry as aforesaid," and the rent was reserved half-yearly at Michaelmas and Lady-day; held, that a notice to quit delivered half a year before Lady-day, but less than half a year before Candlemas, was good; the taking being in substance from Lady-day, with a privilege for the in-coming tenant to enter on the arable land at Candlemas for the sake of ploughing, &c.f different Under an agreement of demise, dated in January, of a dwelling-house, and other buildings for the purpose of carry- *873 ing on a manufacture, together with certain meadow, pasture, and bleaching-grounds, watercourses, &c., for a term of thirtyfive years, to commence, as to the meadow ground, from the 25th of December last; as to the pasture, from the 25th of Furley d. Mayor of Canterbury v. Wood, 1 Esp. 198. Doe d. Hall v. Benson, 4 B. & A. 58. (6 Eng. C. L. 527.) Doe d. Spicer v. Lea, 11 East, 312. Doe d. Strickland v. Spence, 6 East, 120. Doe d. Heapy v. Howard, 11 East, 498. Doe d. Dagget v. Snowdon, 2 Bl. 1224. But where a tenant held a farm as to the arable lands from Candlemas, and as to the buildings and pastures from May-day, and the rent was payable at Michaelmas and Lady-day, a notice to quit given six months before May-day, but not six months before Candlemas, was held insufficient. Doe d. Grey de Wilton, (Lord,) 2 East, 384, n. But it did not appear in this case whether six months' notice previous to Lady-day had been given. 'Doe d. Strickland v. Spence, 6 East, 120. 2 Smith, 255. |