Lessee Bowen v Cleary

CourtExchequer of Pleas (Ireland)
Judgment Date22 April 1847
Date22 April 1847

Exch. of Pleas.

Lessee BOWEN

Browne v. Motherwell 1 Cr. & D. C. C. 471.

Phillips v. Hughes 2 Cr. & D. C. C. 238.

Davis v. Jackson Ir. Cir. Rep. 384.

Daniel v. Bingham 7 Ir. Law Rep. 29.

Coleby v. Norris 1 Wilson, 91.

Whiskard v. Wilder 1 Bur. 330.

Hazlewood v. TatchardENR 3 T. R. 351.

CASES AT LAW. 449 E. T. 1847. Exch. of Pleas. Lessee BOWEN v. CLEARY. Ix this case, which was an ejectment for non-payment of rent, it appeared at the trial, that the notice which was indorsed upon the summons in ejectment, pursuant to the statute 9 & 10 Vic. c. 3, 8.1, was in the following terms :-" The lessors of the Rlaintiff claim "84. 10s. being for over one year's rent, up to 'ale 1st day of "November 1846. The times at which the same accrued due being "as follows, that is to say :-one year's rent up to November 1846, "61. 5s. ; balance of old arrear 23. 6s. The jury hav ing found for the plaintiff F. Meagher, pursuant to leave reserved at the trial, moved to enter a nonsuit, on the ground of the insufficiency of the above notice. The defect in this notice entitles the defendant to a nonsuit. Previous to the passing of the 9 & 10 Vic. c. 3, there was an Act in force (6 & 7 W. 4, c. 75,) requiring in certain cases particulars to be furnished, stating the times at which the rent accrued due in respect of which a distress is made. The occurrence of the word " times," in the plural number in each statute, shows that the object which the Legislature had in view in each case is the same ; and that the interpretation received by the 6th section of the former statute, 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 75, ought to be extended to the Act now under consideration. But the provisions of the 6th section of the preÂÂvious Act are mandatory : Browne v. Motherwell (a) ; Srnallman d. Phillips v. Hughes (b); Davis v. Jackson (C).-[BENNEFATHER, B. Those were cases of proceedings by civil bill.]-Davis v. Jackson shows that the particulars as stated in the notice in the present case are not a compliance with the statute, inasmuch as the times at which each portion of the rent became due are not stated. The CHIEF BARON in that case says :-" If you proceed for one gale, the "time, and if for more than one, the times, at which each accrued " must be stated ; otherwise the party would not know what gales "were demanded. This merely says, ' rent and arrears of rent," "without specifying when they t ccrued. I am of opinion that the " Act is mandatory, and that this particular is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Thomas Jones, Lessee of Lord Ashtown v James White and Richard White
    • Ireland
    • Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 11 Noviembre 1847
    ...v. RybotENR 3 Burr. 1374. Davis v. Jackson 1 Ir. Cir. c. 184. Lord Westmeath v. Hogg 3 Ir. Law Rep. 27. Lessee Bowen v. Cleary 10 Ir. Law Rep. 449. Davis v. Jackson Ir. Cir. Rep. 384. 400 CASES AT LAW. M. T. 1847. Queei faelsols. THOMAS. JONES; Lessee of LORD ASHTOWN, JAMES WHITE and RICHAR......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT