Lambert v M'Donnell

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 05 November 1864
• Date: 05 November 1864
• Court: Exchequer (Ireland)

Exchequer.

LAMBERT

and

M'DONNELL.

Creagh v. BloodENR 1 Jon. & Lat. 133.

Crowley v. VittyENR 7 Exch. 319.

Foquet v. MooreENR 7 Exch. 870.

The Earl of Egremont v. Courtenay 11 Q. B. 702.

Lynch v. Lynch 6 Ir. Law Rep. 131.

Gybson v. SearlENR Cro. Jac. 177.

Earl of Arundel v. Lord Gray Dyer, 200, pl. 62.

Peter v. KendalENR 6 B. & C. 703.

Nicholls v. Atherstone 10 Q. B. 944.

Lord Lorton v. Murphy 2 Jebb. & Sy. 323.

The Duchess of Kingston's case 2 Smith, L. C., 5th ed., 713.

136 COMMON LAW REPORTS. M. T. 1864. Exchequer. LAMBERT v. WDONNELL. (Exchequer.) Nov. 3, 5. Upon the sur- Tins was an action of ejectment on the title, and was tried before render to the head landlord, O'Brien, J., at the Spring Assizes 1864, for the county of Kilkenny. of a farm, held under a lease A. Lambert sen., father of the plaintiff, in the year 1828, made a for lives, upon the day of the lease of a farm to John Bryan, for three lives. Upon the decease of surrender, he informed the John Bryan, his son D. Bryan went into possession of the farm. defendant -yearly b su , te - Upon Bryan's farm stood a house, in :which the defendant, who was a nant of a house aploughman, at weekly wages, in the employment of A. Lambert upon the farm, of the surren- sen., lived, and for which he paid 1 a-year rent to Bryan. Upon der by his im mediate lessor, the 6th of November 1849, by deed of surrender, indorsed upon the and the de fendant acqui- lease of 1828, D. Bryan surrendered all the lands comprised in that esced in it. The defend- lease, except the defendant's house, to A. Lambert sen. At the ant, who was ploughman, at trial, A. Lambert jun., the plaintiff, thus detailed what occurred with weekly wages, reference to that cabin, upon the day of the surrender of the farm:- to the land- lord, agreed to "I went to defendant upon the 6th of November 1849, and I told continue in possession of " him that Daniel Bryan had given up possession of the farm, and I the house, as caretaker, RR- " asked him was he satisfied ? He said yes. He said he hoped til some other house could be " we would not charge him rent, as Bryan did, as he (defendant) procured for him by the " was a poor man. I told him that, instead of charging him rent, landlord. No demand of " my father and I would leave him in the house as a caretaker, until possession was made by the " such time as we could provide him with a house elsewhere ; and I plaintiff, nor was rent paid " asked him was he satisfied to take it on those terms ? He said he by the defend " was ; and that he would...