HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0656 and id is 1 raw text is: HARRIS 17. EVANS
faction in manner hereinafter mentioned, is descended to the said testator's four
daughters, as his heirs at law.
Case 171.-HARRIS against EVANS. [1756.]
Lease to hold for one year. and so for two or three years, or such term as the parties
should think fit. Held, a lease for one year only, without subsequent agreement.-
[S. C. 1 Wilson. 262.] In the Exchequer, 13 Nov. 1756.
Bill by plaintiff against defendant, for an account of rent, &c. A question arose,
What interest the plaintiff had under a lease made to him by defendant, to hold from
Michaelmas Day, for one whole year, and so for two or three years, or any such further
term of years as the said N. Evans and R. H. should think fit, and agree, on yielding
and paying for the said one year, and from thence yearly and every year, during such
term or terms as shall be hereafter granted, £35 per annum. The Court stopped the
defendant's counsel (of which I was one), and declared their opinion to be clearly, That
it was a lease but for one year only, without a subsequent agreement : and if it had
been doubtful on the words of the habendum, those under the reservation fully ex-
plained them.(1)
(1) The Editor was unable to meet with any entry of this case, in the Record Books
of the Court of Exchequer. In Wilson's Reports, vol. 1, p. 262, there is the following
short note of the case. Per cur. A lease to hold to R. Harris, from Michaelmas
for one year, and so for two or three years, or any further term of years, as the said
N. Evans, and Ri. Harris, shall think fit, and agree from and after the expiration
of the said term of one year, is a lease for two years, and after every subsequent year
begun is not determinable till that be ended, like 2 Salk. 314.-The Report in Wilson
differs from that in the text, but it will be observed, Mr. Ambler states that he was
one of the counsel in the cause, and his report is therefore most likely to be the correct
one.-See Denn v. Cartright, 4 East, 31, in which case it was laid down by Lord Ellen-
borough, that a demise for a year, and so on from year to year, must enure as a tenure
for at least two years-and see Bellasis v. Burbrich, 2 Salk. 413, and Legg v. Shadwick,
ib. 414. See Bulstr. Part 2, p. 85.
[330] Case 172.-TOMLINSON against GILL. In Chancery, 13 Nov. 1756.
[See Lloyds v. Harper, 1880, 16 Ch. D. 309 ; In re Flavell, Murray v. Flavell,
1883, 25 Ch. D. 97.]
One promises, if the widow of the intestate would permit him to be joined with her
in the letters of administration, he would make good any deficiency of assets to pay
debts. Held, the promise was binding, and not within the statute of frauds. (1)-[Lib.
Reg. 1756, B. fo. 78 b, nom. Tornbleson v. Gill.]
The defendant Gill promised, that if the widow of the intestate John Gill would
permit him to be joined with her in the letters of administration of his assets, he would
make good any deficiency of assets to discharge the intestate's debts.(2)
Bill by creditors of the intestate against Gill, for a satisfaction of their debts, and
performance of the promise. It was insisted on the part of the defendant, to be within
the statute of frauds and perjuries ; and that the promise not being in writing, was
void by that statute.
Lord Hardwicke, Chancellor:
There are two Questions : 1st, On the right; 2d, On the remedy. The bill is
founded on an argument, which is not unusual where there is a contest about obtaining
administration. It is not uncommon, upon such occasions, for the simple contract
creditors to agree, that administration shall be granted to a specialty creditor, upon
terms of his agreeing to pay the debts equally and pari passu. Such agreements are
seldom put into writing.
I am of opinion, this is not within the statute of frauds. It is not within the first
branch of the section ; for Gill was not administrator at the time of making the promise ;
and it is no answer to say, that he was administrator afterwards. It is not within
the second branch of that clause : the modern determinations have made a distinction
between a promise to pay the original debt, and on the foot of the original contract,
AMB. 330.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0656&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)