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/ssactsengr0766 and id is 1 raw text is: HOGGART V. CUTTS
G-'egory v. Doidge (3 Bing. 474) is a still stronger case: there does not appear to
have been any misrepresentation; the tenant had deliberately acknowledged the party
claiming as his landlord, and made an agreement with respect to the rent upon tha
footing; but this proving to have been done in ignorance of the title of the other
party claiming, was held not to bind the tenant.
The case of Hopcraft v. Keys (9 Bing. 613) has no direct application; that decision
having proceeded upon this-that the occupier did not hold under the party who
claimed the rent, that party having been evicted by a title paramount, and the
occupier having commenced a new tenancy under the party who so evicted his prior
landlord.
The case of Doe dent. Plevin v. Brown (7 Adol. & Ellis, 447) was a case of attorn-
ment made by the direction of the person under whom the tenant held. The title
was disputed by his assignee; but Lord Denman, in holding that the tenant was at
liberty to dispute the title of the person to whom he had attorned, says that it was
competent for him to explain and render inconclusive acts done under mistake or
through misrepresentation; putting, therefore, mistake and misrepresentation, for
that purpose, upon the same footing.
[196] So far, I think, it was admitted at the Bar that the cases were uniform. But
a case was referred to, Hall v. Butler (10 Adol. & Ellis, 204), which, it is contended,
establishes a different doctrine. Now, I think the doctrine of that case is by no
means inconsistent with the former cases, but completely and entirely consistent with
them. In that case the tenant took possession and held under a person named Nevitt,
who afterwards directed the tenant to pay his rent in future to the Defendant, Butler.
Another person then claimed by title paramount to Nevitt. Butler, the Defendant,
vas entitled to stand in Nevitt's place; and the tenant, who could not dispute Nevitt's
title, was held to be equally precluded from disputing Butler's. The Judges put it
upon this ground, either that the Defendant Butler ratified the demise, or that there
was a fresh demise by him; and that in either case the tenant could not dispute
Butler's title. Now, it will be observed that in either case the tenant was disputing
the title of the person from whom he derived his tenancy, and not the title of a party
claiming through such person. There is nothing, therefore, at all inconsistent in the
doctrine of that case with the doctrine of all the preceding cases.
Upon this review of the cases at law, there appears to me to be no doubt but that
the Plaintiff, notwithstanding what has passed between him and the Defendant, Sir
M. Wood, is entitled to shew if he can that Sir M. Wood is not a devisee of the
original lessor, and therefore not entitled to the tenant's rent ; for that there is no
question between the Plaintiff and any of the Defendants, except that which is in
dispute between the different Defendants, and that this is, therefore, a proper case for
interpleader.
The motion must be refused, with costs.
[197] Between CHARLES LANCELOT HOGGART, Plaintiff; and JOHN CUTTS, CHARLES
VICKERS, and WINWOOD THODEY, Defendants. April 19, 1841.
[S. C. 10 L. J. Oh. (N. S.), 314.]
Where a fund in the hands of a stakeholder was contested by three parties, one of
whom claimed the whole of it and the other two claimed it in certain proportions,
and the stakeholder filed a bill of interpleader against the three claimants, the
Court, at the hearing, dismissed the bill with costs, as against one of the parties
claiming a part of the fund, and decreed that the other two parties should inter-
plead as to the other part.
Form of decree in an interpleading suit.
The Plaintiff in this cause, who was an auctioneer, was employed, in the month of
June 1835, by the Defendant Thodey, to sell an estate for him by auction. The
Plaintifl accordingly, advertised the estate to be sold, subject to certain conditions of
sale, by which it was, amongst other things, provided that the purchaser should, at
the time of the sale, pay a certain proportion of the purchase money by way of
465
CR%. & PH. 196.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0766&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)