Claim for rent and royalties on lease of mine, and breach of covenant. such surplus quantity of coal as should make up the minimum rent paid in advance in consequence of the deficiency, without paying more rent for the same, but so nevertheless that they should continue to pay the minimum rent annually during the continuance of the demise. 3. The said indenture of lease contained, among other covenants and provisoes, covenants that the lessees, their executors, administrators, and assigns, should pay the rents and royalties reserved, and would work and get the said coal in a proper, usual, and miner-like and workmanlike manner. 4. At the time of the default and breaches of covenant hereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff was solely entitled to the aforesaid premises, and to the benefit of the covenants of the said lease, and the defendants were assignees from the said W. S. and J. B. of the said lease, and bound by the covenants and provisoes thereof, and were working the said mines as assignees thereof. 5. The defendants have made default in performing the said covenant to pay the said rents and royalties. Since December, 1874, the defendants have paid a portion of the said rents and royalties, but £454 15s. 11d. is still due and unpaid from the defendants to the plaintiff in respect of the said rents and royalties. 6. The defendants, during their tenure of the premises, worked the said mines in an improper, unusual, negligent, and unworkmanlike manner, and improperly and negligently took the coal from the vicinity of the main engine dip, which should have been left to support the said dip and the headings running out of it, before working the more distant parts of the mine, and improperly neglected to leave proper pillars and supports for the said dip and headings, thereby causing great loss and damage to the plaintiff, and injury to the said mines. 7. In the year 1877, a fire broke out in the said colliery by reason of the negligence of the defendants' servants. The defendants caused the said mine to be flooded with water in order to put out the said fire. Great loss and damage were caused to the plaintiff, and injury to the said mine, by the said fire and flooding, and in consequence of the defendants' negligent working of the said coal, and neglect and default to provide proper supports and pillars, the roof of the headings and main engine dip fell in, and the mine was seriously damaged and injured, and depreciated in value. The plaintiff claims : (1.) £454 158. 11d. for rent and royalties due and unpaid. payment. (3.) £5200 damages in respect of the damage for negligence and breach of the covenants to work. (4.) Such further and other relief as the nature of the case may require. Action by Trustee and Cestuis que Trust under Lease made by Trustee for Breach of Covenant to repair. Claim by cestui que trust under lease for breach of covenant 1. By an indenture of lease dated the 12th day of September, 1866, and made between the plaintiff A. W. of the one part and the defendant of the other part, for the considerations therein mentioned, the said A. W. leased to the said defendant the premises known as No.-, Street, Bayswater, in the to repair. county of Middlesex, from the 29th day of September then next for the residue of a term of twenty-one years from the 29th day of September, 1855, wanting the last twenty-one days, subject to the covenants in the said indenture contained. 2. The said indenture contained covenants to keep the said premises in good repair, and to yield the same up in good repair at the expiration of the said term. 3. The said A. W. granted the said lease in the capacity of trustee for the plaintiffs M. N. and G. F. in respect of their interests in the premises in question, and the plaintiffs M. N. and G. F. always have been solely entitled to the rent reserved by the said lease, and to the benefit of the covenants therein reserved, and the defendant has always paid the said rent directly to the plaintiffs M. N. and G. F., and has always acknowledged the plaintiffs M. N. and G. F. as his landlords in respect of the said premises. 4. On the expiry of the said lease the defendant failed to render up the said premises in good repair, but rendered up the same in a dilapidated condition and out of repair. Full particulars of the dilapidations complained of have been delivered to the defendant. The plaintiffs claim £- damages for the said breaches of covenant on the part of the defendant. Claim by tenant for breach of implied promise of quiet enjoyment. Statement of defence. Action by Tenant against Landlord, for Breach of implied 1. On the 25th day of March, 18—, the plaintiff became tenant from year to year to the defendant of certain premises known as No. 30, T. Road, in the county of M., upon the terms, amongst others, that the defendant would allow the plaintiff to have quiet enjoyment of the said premises during the said tenancy, and would give the plaintiff six months' notice to quit the said premises, such notice expiring on any subsequent 25th March, if the defendant should require possession thereof. 2. The defendant did not give the plaintiff such six months' notice as aforesaid, and after the creation of the said tenancy, and during its continuance, that is to say, during the month of 18-, the Metropolitan Board of Works then lawfully claiming the said house, and having a good title to the same, entered the said house and evicted the plaintiff therefrom. 3. By reason of such eviction the plaintiff lost the use and occupation of the said premises and the profits of the business which he then carried on upon the said premises, and was put to great expense in providing himself with other premises, and by being compelled to remove his goods thereto. The plaintiff claims : 2. Statement of Defence. [Denials in ordinary form of certain paragraphs.] 3. The defendant says that the plaintiff, at the time he became tenant to the defendant as aforesaid, was well aware that the said premises would be required by the Metropolitan Board of Works for the purpose of certain street improvements, and it was a term of the said agreement of tenancy that the same should terminate at once, whenever the said house should be lawfully required and taken by the said Metropolitan Board of Works. 4. And the defendant further says, that before the committing of the alleged breach, if any, and after the making of the said agreement of tenancy between the plaintiff and the defendant, of defence. the Metropolitan Board of Works required to take the said Statement house and premises, under the powers given them by the Metropolitan Street Improvement Act, 1872, and for the purposes for which they were by that Act empowered to take the same, and the said Board was empowered to take compulsorily the said house and premises, and did, by virtue of the said Act, lawfully and compulsorily take the same, which is the grievance complained of by the plaintiff. 5. And the defendant further says that if he did agree with the plaintiff to give him six months' notice to quit, such notice expiring on any subsequent 25th day of March, as in the statement of claim alleged, (which the defendant does not admit), the plaintiff before breach thereof waived such agreement and notice, and on the 23rd day of December, 1876, the defendant, by his agent, duly served on the plaintiff a six months' notice to quit, viz., on the 24th day of June, 1877, the defendant's interest in the said premises expiring on the said 24th day of June, 1877, as the plaintiff well knew, and the plaintiff duly accepted the said notice, with full knowledge of the premises, and in lieu and in full satisfaction of the notice, (if any), previously agreed upon. Action for Breach of Covenant for Title and Quiet Enjoyment. 1. The plaintiff is, &c. ; the defendant is, &c. Waiver of right to notice under agreement by acceptance of shorter notice. breach of covenant for title and quiet 2. By an indenture of lease, dated the 24th of June, 1870, Claim for the defendant demised to the plaintiff a dwelling-house for a term of twenty-one years from the said date, subject to the rent and covenants therein contained, and the defendant thereby covenanted with the plaintiff that he had at the said date full power to demise the said dwelling-house for the said term. 3. The defendant had not at the said date full power to demise the said dwelling-house for the said term. 4. By reason that the defendant had no such full power as stated in the preceding paragraph, one Edward S., on the 1st of May, 1877, lawfully entered the said dwelling-house and evicted the plaintiff therefrom. The plaintiff claims £1000 damages. enjoyment. Statement of defence. Counter claim for rent and breach of covenant Claim by tenant under custom and agreement for improvements. Statement of Defence and Counterclaim. 1. The defendant denies the allegations in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the statement of claim. 2. If, as the plaintiff states, one Edward S. entered the said dwelling-house as alleged, he did not so enter lawfully or under any legal title sufficient to authorise him to do so. And if he in fact evicted the plaintiff, such eviction was illegal. 3. The defendant further says that the plaintiff, by collusion with the said E. S., submitted to an eviction by the said E. S. And by way of counter-claim the defendant says: 1. The plaintiff, by the indenture of lease mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the statement of claim, covenanted to pay rent for the said dwelling-house, at the rate of £80 per annum, payable quarterly, and also to keep the said dwelling-house in a state of adequate and sufficient repair. 2. The plaintiff was at the commencement of this action in arrear for two quarters of the said rent. 3. The plaintiff neglected and omitted to perform his said covenant to repair, and the said dwelling-house has become very much dilapidated and injured in consequence of the neglect and omission to repair. Full particulars of the dilapidations and injuries have been delivered to the defendant. The defendant claims : (1.) £40 for rent, and interest thereon. (2.) £100 damages. Action against Landlord for Improvements. 1. The plaintiff is a farmer residing near W., in the county of S., and the defendant is a country gentleman residing at the same place. 2. In the year 1860 the plaintiff became tenant from year to year to the defendant of a farm known as "Little Rectory Dale," situate near Lichfield, in the county of Stafford, on the terms (among others) that the plaintiff should cultivate the said farm in a skilful and husbandlike manner according to the custom of the country, and that the defendant should at the expiration of the said tenancy pay to the plaintiff such reasonable compensation and allowances as the plaintiff should according to the said custom be entitled to receive as an out |