the others do not join, unless indeed by the conditions of the tenancy it Concuris rendered necessary for all the parties to concur in the notice, in which rence. case a notice given by some of the parties, without the junction or authority of their companious, will be altogether invalid.-5 East. 491.

Where the relation of landlord and tenant subsists, difficulties can seldom On whom occur as to the party upon whom the notice should be served. The the service service should be invariably upon the tenant of the party serving the should be notice, notwithstanding a part or even the whole of the premises may made. have been underlet by him. And in a case where the service was upon a relation of the undertenant upon the premises, the service was ruled by Lord Ellenborough in the case of Doe d. Mitchell v. Levi, to be insufficient, although the notice was addressed to the original tenant.

The original tenant is also liable to an ejectment at the expiration of The original the notice for the lands in the possession of his undertenants, although he tenant and may on his part have given proper notices to them and delivered up such his under parts of the premises as were under his own control.-Roe v. Wiggs, 2 N. R. tenant. 330.-Pleasant d. Hayton, v. Benson, 14 East. 234.

Where the premises are in the possession of two or more as joint tenants Service of or tenants in common, a written notice to quit, addressed to all and notice on served upon one only, will be a good notice.-Doe d. Lord Bradford v. joint tenants Watkins, 7 East. 551. So also a parol notice given to one co-tenant &c. only will bind his fellow.-Doe d. Lord Macartney v. Crick, 5 Esp.

196.

With respect to the mode of serving the notice, it is in all cases advisa- Service of ble, if possible, to deliver it to the tenant personally; but if personal service notice, (on cannot be effected the service will be sufficient if the notice be left with the whom). wife or servant of the tenant, at his usual place of residence, whether upon the demised premises or elsewhere, and its nature and contents explained at the time. Joues d. Griffiths v. Marsh, 4 T. R. 464. Doe d. Lord Bradford v. Watkins, 7 East. 353. Doe d. Neville v. Dunbar, 1 M. & M. 10. But a mere leaving of the notice at the tenant's house, without proof that it was delivered to some member of the household, will not be sufficient service.- Doe d. Buross v. Lucas, 5 Esp. 153.

Where the landlord intends to enforce his claim to double value, if Form of the tenant holds over, (4 G. II., c. 28, s. 1,) it is necessary that the notice notices. to quit should be in writing, but for the purpose of an ejectment a (4G. II., c. parol notice is sufficient, unless the notice is required to be in writing, 28, s. 1.) by express agreement between the parties.-Legg d. Scott v. Benion, Notice when Willes, 43. Timmins v. Rowlinson, 1 Blk. 533. Doe d. Lord Macartney verbal or in . Crick, 5 Esp. 196. Roe d. Dean of Rochester v. Pierce, 2 Camp. 96. It writing. is however the general practice to give written notices, and it is a precaution which should always, when possible, be observed, as it prevents mistakes and renders the evidence certain and correct. It is customary also to address the notice to the tenant in possession, and it is perhaps most prudent to adhere to this form, though if proof can be given that the notice was served personally upon him, it is thereby rendered unnecessary. Doe d. Matthewson v. Wrightman, 1 Esp. 5. And where a notice was addressed to the tenant by a wrong Christian name, and the tenant did not return the notice or object to it, and there was no tenant of the name mentioned in the notice, it was ruled at N. P., sufficient.-Doe v. Spiller, 6 East. 70. A subscribing witness to a notice to quit is unneces- Witness to sary, and it is prudent not to have one, as it may occasion difficulties in notice. the proof of the service, and cannot be of the slightest advantage to the landlord.-Doe d. Sykes v. Durnford, 2 M. & S. 62. Care should be taken that the words of a notice are clear and decisive, without ambiguity, or giving an alternative to the tenant; for although the courts will reluctantly listen to objections of this nature, yet if the notice be really ambiguous or optional, it will be sufficient to render it invalid as far, at least, as the action of ejectment is concerned. The notice however will not be invalid, unless it contain a real and bona fide option, and not merely an apparent one; for if it appear clearly from the words of the notice that the landlord had no other end in view than that of turn ug out the tenant, it will be deemed a notice sufficient to found an ejectment upon, notwithstanding an apparent alternative. Thus the words," I Alternative desire you to quit the possession at Lady-day next, of the premises, &c., in words.

Intention

your possession, or I shall insist upon double rent," have been held to coptain no alternative, because the landlord did not mean to offer a new bargain thereby, but only added the latter words as an emphatical way of enforcing the notice, and showing the tenant the legal consequences af his holding over. It was contended for the tenant that this could not be the construction of the notice, because the statue 4 Geo. II., c. 2, does not give double the rent but double the value, on holding over; but Lord Mansfield, C. J., was of opinion that the notice, notwithstanding this variance, clearly referred to the statute. It seems, however, that if the words had been," Or else that you agree to pay double rent," the notice would have been an alternative one.-Doe d. Matthews v. Jackson, Doug 175. (It seems the court will not invalidate a notice on account of as ambiguity in the wording of it, provided the intention of the notice be sufficiently certain.) When a notice was to quit" on the 25th day of March or 6th day of April, next ensuing," and was delivered before new Michaelmas-day, it was held to be a good notice, as being intended to meet an holding, commencing either at old or new Lady-day next, and not to give an alternative.-Doe d. Matthewson v. Wrightman, 4 Esp. 5. It is not necessary that a notice to quit should be directed to the tenant in possession, if proved to have been delivered to him at the proper time. — Id A notice delivered to a tenant at Michaelmas, 1795, to quit, at Lady-day, which will be in the year 1795," was held to be a good notice to quit ou Lady-day, 1796.-Doe d. Bedford (Duke) v. Knightly, 7 T. R. 63. 1 Chi 11. (b) A notice to quit on Lady-day is a good termination of holding, either from Lady-day old or Lady-day new style.-Denn d. Willan t Walker, Peakes add. cas. 194. If a tenant from year to year hold from old Michaelmas a notice to quit" at Michaelmas," generally is goodDoe d. Hinde v. Vince, 2 Camp. 256. S. P. Doe v. Brookes, 2 Camp. 257. But see Doe d. Spicer v. Lea, 11 East, 312. But a notice to quit si Michaelmas generally will be held to mean old Michaelmas, if the custom of the country be to hold from that time.-Furley d. Canterbury # Wood, 1 Esp. 198. Where on a written agreement to demise from the following "Lady-day," a notice to quit" on the 6th of April" is good, paral evidence having been adduced to show that by "Lady-day" the parties meant old Lady-day.-Denn d. Peters v. Hopkinson, 3 D. & R. 507. (See pp. 670, Notice to quit at the end or expiration of the "current year of your 672.) tenancy, which shall expire next after the end of one half year from the date hereof," was held sufficient.-Doe d. Phillips v. Butler, 2 Esp. 589. Description A misdescription of the premises is not fatal, if they are otherwise suf of premises. ficiently designated, so that the party to whom the notice has been given has not been misled.-Doe d. Cox and others, 4 Esp. 185. But a notice to quit a part only of premises leased together is bad.-Doe d. Rodd r. Archer, 14 East, 245. Where a house, lands, and tithes, are held under a parol démise at a joint rent, a notice to quit" the house, lands, and premises, with the appurtenances," includes the tithes, and is sufficient to put an end to the tenancy.-Doe d. Morgan v. Church, 3 Camp. 71. But the notice should include all the premises held under the same demise. for the landlord cannot determine the tenancy as to part of the things de mised, and continue it as the residue.-Doe d. Rodd v. Archer, 14 East,

Expiration of notice.

245.

In the case of a tenancy from year to year, there must be half a year's notice to quit, ending at the expiration of the year.-Right d. Flowers Darby, I T. R. 159; and see Doe d. Puddicombe v. Harris, 1 T. R. 161.. If premises are taken "for twelve months certain, and six months' notice to quit afterwards," the tenancy may be determined by a six months' notice to quit, expiring at the end of the first year.-Thompson v. Msberly, 2 Camp. 573. It appears that certain demises which have the sp pearance of tenancies from year to year only, are considered by the courts as conveying to the tenant an indefeasible interest for a certain time, though afterwards liable to be determined by a notice to quit. Thus a demise, "not for one year only, but from year to year," has been held to constitute a tenancy for two years at least, and not determinable by ■ notice to quit at the expiration of the first year.-Denn d. Jacklin v. Carlwright, 4 East, 31. The same interpretation has also been given to a de wise "for a year, and afterwards from year to year."-Birch v. Wright, i

T. R. 378-80. Johnson v. Huddlestone, 4 B. & C. 922. Where premises Expiration are let from year to year, upon an agreement that either party may deter- of notice. mine the tenancy by a quarter's notice, the notice must expire at the period of the year when the tenancy commenced.-Doe d. Pitcher v. Donavon, I Taunt. 555. 2 Camp. 78. So where the premises are taken under an agreement by which the tenant is always to quit "at three months' notice," the notice must expire either at the same time of the year when the tenancy commenced, or at any other corresponding quarter day.-Kemp v. Derrett, 3 Camp. 510. If a landlord lease for seven years by parol, and agree that the tenant shall enter at Lady-day, and quit at Candlemas, though the lease be void by the statute of frauds as to the duration of the term, the tenant holds under the terms of the lease in other respects; and therefore, the landlord can only put an end to the tenancy at Candlemas. -Doe d. Rigge v. Bell,5 T. R. 471. As no new tenancy is created by a mere agreement for an increase of rent in the middle of the year of a teat the time when the tenant originally entered.-Doe d. Bedford v. Kendriek, Ad. Eject. 129; and see Doe d. Holcomb v. Johnson, 6 Esp. 10. Where a remainder man creates a new tenancy with a tenant in possession under a void lease granted by a tenant for life, and receives rent on the days of payment mentioned in the lease, a notice to quit must expire on the day of entry under the original demise.-Roe d. Jordan v. Ward, 1 H. Black. 97. S. P. Doe d. Collins v. Walker, 7 T. R. 478. If a tenant disputes the time when his tenancy commences, and that his notice to quit does not correspond with it, it is incumbent on him, and not on the lessor, to show the true time of the commencement of the tenancy.-Doe d. Matthewson v. Wrightman, 4 Esp. 5. Where a tenant, on being applied to respecting the commencement of his holding, informs the party that it begins on a certain day, and notice to quit on that day is given at a subsequent time, he shall be bound by the information he so gave, and not be permitted to show that, in fact, it began at a different time.--Doe d. Eyre v. Lambley, 2 Esp. 635.

By the common law, the notice necessary, in general, to be given to a Period uetenant is a notice for half a year, expiring at the end of the current year cessary in of his tenancy; and that a notice expiring at any other period will not be notice to sufficient. This notice has been frequently understood as a six months' quit. notice; and the distinction seems to be, that when the tenancy expires at any of the usual feasts; as, Michaelmas, Christmas, Lady-day, or Midsummer, the notice must be given prior to the corresponding feast happening in the middle of the year of the tenancy; whilst if it expire at any other period of the year, the notice must be given six calendar months previous to such expiration. The notice, when a tenancy commences at any of the usual feasts, may be given to quit at the end of half a year, or of six months from the date of the corresponding feast in the middle of the year, without stating the day when the tenant is to quit, although the intermediate time be not exactly half a year, or six months from feast to feast, being the usual half-yearly computation. In the case of Howard v. Wemsley, 6 Esp. 53, when the notice was to quit "on or about the expiration of six calendar months from the 29th of September," (the tenancy commencing March 25,) the court ruled the word calendar to be surplusage, and held the notice good.

Service of a notice to quit upon the tenant's wife at the house demised Service of is good service.-Pultney v. Shelton, 5 Ves. jun. 261, n. When the te- notice. nancy expires by reason of a notice to quit, the lessor must prove the tenancy of the defendant, the service of the notice, and its contents, (and if given by an agent, the agent's authority,) and that the notice and the year of the tenancy expire at the same time. When, also, the notice is for a shorter period than half a year, or expires at any other period than the end of the year of the tenancy, it will be necessary to show the custom of the country where the lands lie, or an express agreement by which such notice is authorised.

The mere leaving a notice to quit at the tenant's house with a servant, Leaving without further proof of its having been explained to the servant, or that notice at it came to the tenant's hands, is not sufficient.-Doe d. Buross v. Lucas, the tenant's 5 Esp. 153. But where the tenant of an estate holden by the year, has a

dwelling house.

Waiver of notice by landlord.

Receipt by agent.

Fresh notice

Effect in evidence.

When no

dwelling house at another place, the delivery of a notice to quit to his servant at the dwelling house, is strong presumptive evidence that the master received the notice.-Jones d. Griffith r. Marsh, 4 T. R. 464 Delivery of a notice to quit to the servant is sufficient, though the tenana might not have been informed of it until within the half year after its expiration, especially as the servant might have been called, but was notDoe d. Neville v. Dunbar, M. & M. 10.

If a landlord receive rent accrued due, after the expiration of a notice to quit, it is a waiver of that notice.-Goodright d. Charter v. Cordwest, 5 T. R. 219. So if he distrain for such rent. Zouch d. Ward e. Walli gale, H. B. 311. But the mere acceptance of rent by a landlord, for occupation subsequent to the time when the tenant ought to have quitted, according to the notice given him for that purpose, is not of itself a waiver on the part of the landlord of such notice, but matter of evidence only, to be left to the jury, under the circumstances of the case. -Doe d. Cheney v. Batten, Cowp 243. 9. East, 314. n.

The receipt by an authorised agent, of rent due at Michaelmas, is prima facie a waiver of a notice to quit at Midsummer.-Doe d. Asbr. Calvert. 2 Camp. 387. But where rent is usually paid at a banker's, if the banker, without any special authority, receives rent accruing after the expiration of a notice to quit, the notice is not thereby waived -1d. If at the end of a year, where the tenancy is from year to year, the landlord accept another person as tenant, in room of the former tenant, with st any surrender in writing, such acceptance shall be a dispensation of any notice to quit.-Sparrow v. Hawkes, 2 Esp. 505-A landlord gase notice to quit different parts of a farm, at different times, which the fendant neglected to do in part, in consequence of which the landlord commenced an ejectment, and before the last period mentioned in the notice was expired, the landlord, fearing that the witness by whom be was to prove the notice would die, gave another notice to quit at the respective times in the following year, but continued to proceed with his ejectment, it was held the second notice was no waiver of the first.—Þæ d. Williams v. Humphreys, 2 East, 237. A landlord of premises, about to sell them, gave his tenant notice to quit on the 11th of October, 1805: but promised him not to turn him out unless they were sold, and not being sold till February, 1807, the tenant refused on demand to deliver up possession, and on ejectment brought, it was held that the promise (which was performed) was no waiver of the notice, nor operated as a license to be on the premises otherwise than subject to the landlord's right of acting on such notice if necessary, and therefore that the tenant not having delivered up possession on demand after a sale, was a trespasser from the expiration of the notice to quit.-Whiteacre d. Boult r. Symonds, 10 East, 13. And a second notice delivered to a tenant, after the expuration of a former notice to quit, on a subsequent day, or to pay double rent, is no waiver of such first notice, or of the double rent which has ac crued under it.-Messenger v. Armstrong, 1 T. R. 53.

If after the expiration of a notice to quit the landlord gives the tensit a fresh notice, that unless he quit in fourteen days he will be required to pay double value, the second notice is no waiver of the first.— Doe d. Digby v. Steele, 3 Camp. 117. But a second notice to the defendant, to quit at Michaelmas, 1811, is a waiver as to him of a former notice given to the original lessce, from whom he claims by assignment to quit st Michaelmas, 1810.-Doe d. Brierley v. Palmer, 16 East, 53. In an action of ejectment the plaintiff must be non-suited, if it be proved that a notice to quit at the end of six months was given by the lessor of the plaintiff to the occupier of the premises, a short time before the bringing of the action.-Doe d. Scott v. Miller, 2 C. P. 348. A notice by the owner of premises, requiring a tenant in possession, "to leave the premises he then rented of the owner, at Lady-day next," is not conclusive evidence of a demise from a testator to the party in possession - Doe d Wilcockson v. Lynch, 2 Chit. 683; and see Bishop e. Howard, 3 D. & R. 293. 2 B. & C. 100. A notice to quit is not prima facie evidence of the period of the year when the tenancy commenced.-Doe d. Asn v. Calvert, 2 Camp. 387. A notice was given on the 22nd of March, by a landlord to his tenant, to quit at the expiration of the current year. A declaration

To Mr. C. D.

form.

(2.)

I do hereby require you to quit, and deliver up Another possession of the house and premises, which you hold as tenant under me, situate, &c., on the day of, &c., next, or at the expiration of the current year of your tenancy. Dated, &c.

To, &c.

(3.)

a tenant of

See p. 149,

I hereby give you notice that I shall quit pos- A notice by session of the messuage or tenement and premises his intention which I now hold of you, situated at, &c., at the to quit. expiration of six months from the date hereof, (that is to say,) on the -day of being the quarter day at which I commenced my tenancy of the said premises.

of

To, &c.

18

now next ensuing,

Dated this

day

350, 351, 352

11 Geo. 2, c. 19, s. 18.

(4.)

Take notice that, by virtue of the proviso con- Notice by

in ejectment laying the demise on the 1st of November, was on the 16th objection of January following, served upon the tenant, who, at the time, made no made. objection to the notice to quit; but said, he should go out as soon as he could fit himself; this was held to be prima facie evidence, that the tenancy commenced at Michaelmas, and was determined before the day of the demise.-Doe d. Baker v. Wombwell, 2 Camp. 559. So if the notice to quit be served personally on the tenant in possession, and he make no objection to it, it is prima facie evidence to be left to the jury that the tenancy commenced at the season of the year when the notice to quit expires. Doe d. Clarges v. Forster, 13 East, 405. S. P. Thomas d. Jones v. Thomas, 2 Campb. 647. A notice desiring the tenant to "quit the premises which you hold under me," does not recognise a subsisting tenancy from year to year subsequent to the term, but is a mere demand of possession. Doe d. Godsell v. Ingliss, 3 Taunt. 54.

A notice to quit, in writing, signed by the party giving it, and attested by a witness, must be proved by calling that witness; or, his absence must be accounted for; proof that it was served on the tenant, that he read it, and did not object to it, is not sufficient.-Doe d. Sykes v. Durnford, 2 M. & S. 62. Where it is the usual course of practice in an attorney's office for the clerks to serve notices to quit on tenants, and to indorse on duplicates of such notices the fact and time of such service, and on one occasion the attorney himself prepared a notice to quit, to serve on a tenant, took it out with him, together with two others prepared at the same time, and returned to his office in the evening, having endorsed on the duplicate of each notice a memorandum of his having delivered it to the tenant; and two of them were proved to have been delivered by him on that occasion; it was held on the trial of an ejectment, after the attorney's death, that the endorsement so made by him was admissable to prove the service of the third notice.-Doe d. Patteshall v. Turford, 3 B. & Adol. 890. In an ejectment against a weekly tenant, the notice proved was to quit on Wednesday the 4th of August, the witness who was called to prove that Wednesday was the expiration of the current week of the tenancy said, "that he guessed the defendant came in about Tuesday or Wednesday, but had no recollection which." This was held insufficient.-Doe d. Finlayson v. Bayley, 5 C. & P. 67.

Proof of

service.