2. On the 5th March, 1868, the plaintiffs and the defendants Claim for entered into an agreement for the purchase by the plaintiff's use and occupation. 94); and where the premises are let at an entire rent, eviction from part by the landlord, when the tenant quits the residue, is a good defence as to such entire rent while the eviction continues. (Morrison v. Chadwick, 7 C. B. 266; Upton v. Townend, 25 L. J. C. P. 44.) But a distinction must be observed between expulsion from a part of the premises demised and from something over which the tenant has only an easement, as in the latter case he would not by quitting exonerate himself from liability to an action for use and occupation of the other premises. (Pellat v. Boosey, 31 L. J. C. P. 281.) And an eviction by a stranger by title paramount from part of the premises is only a ground for having the rent apportioned. Eviction by the landlord from part of the premises a defence. A threat of expulsion by a person entitled to possession and a conse- Threat of quent attornment or giving up possession to him are equivalent to an expulsion, eviction. (Mayor of Poole v. Whitt, 15 M. & W. 571; Carpenter v. when Parker, 27 L. J. C. P. 78.) But it is no eviction that the tenant left the equivalent premises in apprehension of a distress by the superior landlord. (Rickett to an v. Tullick, 6 C. & P. 66.) A mere trespass is not an eviction. (Hodgskin v. Queenborough, Willes, 13, n. (b).) See as to what constitutes an eviction, Upton v. Townend, supra; Wheeler v. Stevenson, 30 L. J. Ex. 46; Pellat v. Boosey, supra. Illegality.]-See several cases cited under the head of Illegality, ante, pp. 355-6, bearing on this subject. Payment.]-Where there has been an assignment of the reversion the payment of rent to the lessor before notice of the assignment is a good defence. (4 Anne, c. 16, s. 10.) But payment to the lessor before the rent day is no defence if before the rent day the defendant received notice of the assignment. (De Nicholls v. Saunders, L. R. 5 C. P. 589.) Where payment has been made in advance and no notice has been given before quarter-day, the advance becomes payment. (Cook v. Guerra, L. R. 7 C. P. 132.) Payment of rates, which the tenant may deduct from the rent under 32 & 33 Vict. c. 41, s. 1, or under 37 & 38 Vict. c. 54, ss. 5, 6, 8, 9, or of the land-tax, is in effect payment by the tenant pro tanto of the rent next falling due. It cannot be deducted from rent falling due subsequently, at least as regards the land-tax. (Cumming v. Bedborough, 15 M. & W. 438.) See as to the right of deducting such sums, Ryan v. Thomson, L. R. 3 C. P. 144. eviction. What pay ment is a defence. which tenant may deduct from the rent. The exception in s. 8 of 37 & 38 Vict. c. 54 to the right of a tenant of a Taxes mine to deduct one-half of the rate newly imposed by that Act and paid by him from the rent payable to his lessor "unless he has specifically contracted to pay such rate in the event of the abolition of such exemption," does not take effect in favour of the lessor, unless the lease has in terms anticipated the imposition of this new liability and thrown it on the tenant; and a covenant to pay the rent "free of and from all rates, taxes, tithe rent-charges, expenses, and deductions whatsoever, parlia mentary, parochial, or of any other nature," will not deprive the tenant of his right to make the deduction given by the above section. (Duke of Devonshire v. The Barrow Hematite Steel Co., Limited, 46 L. J. 435, App., affirming decision of Court below.) The amount realised by a sale under a distress would be a defence so far as such amount, but not the value of the goods distrained. If the goods have been sold at too low a rate, the defendant's remedy was formerly by a separate action (Efford v. Burgess, 1 M. & Rob. 23), but now an unjustifiable sale may be made the subject of a counter-claim. Claim for use and occupation. from the defendants of the said warehouses and premises in Gravel Lane for the sum of £8800. 3. By the said agreement it was (inter alia) agreed that the purchase should be completed and possession given to the plaintiffs' company on the 29th September, 1869, up to which time all outgoings were to be paid by the vendors, and from which time the company were to receive all rents and profits, and that the company should pay interest on the said sum of £8800 at certain rates therein agreed upon from the 29th September, 1867, until the completion of the said purchase. 4. The purchase of the said premises was not completed till the 13th March, 1876, although the plaintiffs were ready and anxious to have completed the said purchase at an earlier date. 5. The plaintiffs paid the said purchase-money by instalments on various dates prior to the said 13th March, 1876, and interest also on the same according to the said agreement of the 5th of March, 1868. 6. The defendants refused to give up possession of the said premises on the completion of the said purchase, and alleged that they were entitled to six months' notice from the plaintiff's prior to their being obliged to give up possession of the said warehouse and premises. 7. The plaintiffs contended that no such notice was requisite to entitle them to the possession of the said warehouse and premises, and therefore issued their warrant to the Sheriff of Middlesex to put them into possession of the same. 8. Possession was accordingly given to the plaintiffs on the 3rd of April, 1876. 9. The defendants have continued in the use and occupation of the said warehouse from the said 5th of March, 1868, until the 3rd of April, 1876, but have paid no rent for the same. 10. The plaintiffs claim rent of the defendants for their use and occupation of the said premises at the rate of £150 per annum as the fair value of the same from the said 29th September, 1869, until the said 3rd April, 1876. The plaintiff's claim £978 148. for the above-mentioned use and occupation by the defendants of the said premises. Claim by Owner of Land for Compensation agreed to be paid by Defendant for Occupation of Land pending a Sale to him. 1. The plaintiffs are the owners of certain land situate in the Claim for parish of Stockton, in the county of Durham, which the defendant desired to purchase of the plaintiffs. 2. The defendant entered into and upon the said land, and became and was possessed thereof, and so remained and continued from the month of June, 1874, until the commencement of this action. 3. On or about the 10th day of January, 1876, it was agreed between the plaintiffs and the defendant that the plaintiffs should sell and the defendant should buy the said land, and that the defendant should and would pay to the plaintiffs, as and by way of compensation for the defendant's use and occupation of the said land, money equal in amount to interest at the rate of £5 per cent. upon the sum of £1963, which was the amount of the money to be paid by the defendant for the said land, if he became the purchaser thereof, calculating such interest from the month of June, 1874, until the defendant became such purchaser of the said land, or ceased to occupy the same, and that a formal agreement for such purchase and sale of the said land should be executed by the plaintiffs and the defendant respectively. 4. The plaintiffs did all acts and all things happened and all times elapsed to entitle the plaintiffs to have the defendant perform his part of the said agreement as aforesaid. 5. The defendant broke his said agreement in this, that he has refused and omitted to execute such formal agreement as aforesaid, and before any breach thereof by the plaintiffs, he wholly and absolutely renounced and abandoned the said agreement, and refused then or ever to perform the same, and then wrongfully discharged the plaintiffs from the further performance of the same, contrary to the said agreement in that behalf, whereby the plaintiffs have lost the expense which they incurred in preparing such formal agreement, and in preparing to perform the said agreement on their part, and have been put to expense in endeavouring to procure the performance thereof by the defendant, and have lost the use and profits of the said land, and use and occupation under a special agreement. Claim for use and occupation under a special agreement. the said land has been greatly deteriorated and lessened in value. 6. At the time of the commencement of this action the sum of £277 168. had become due and payable from the defendant to the plaintiff's for and in respect of the money agreed to be paid for such compensation to the plaintiffs for the defendant's occupation of the said land as aforesaid, and the same is still wholly unpaid. 7. As an alternative claim, the plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to recover from the defendant the said sum of £277 16s. as compensation to them for the defendant's use and occupation of the said land during the time aforesaid, irrespective of the said special agreement. Claim for warehouse rent. Warehouse. Claim for Warehouse Rent. 1. The plaintiff is a warehouseman carrying on business at Victoria wharf, in the city of London. 2. On or about the 1st of May, 1876, it was agreed by and between the plaintiff and the defendant that in consideration that the plaintiff would keep and take care of 80 hogsheads of sugar, the property of the defendant, in his warehouses at Vic toria wharf aforesaid, the defendant would pay to the plaintiff Claim for the sum of £5 per month as warehouse rent. 3. On the 1st of May, 1876, the plaintiff received into his custody the said 80 hogsheads of sugar, and has ever since taken proper care and charge of the same. 4. On the 1st of June, 1877, there was due to the plaintiff the sum of £65 in respect of warehouse rent. 5. The defendant has not paid the same thereof. The plaintiff claims £65. or any portion warehouse rent. Warranty (a). Action claiming Damages for Breach of Warranty on Sale of Goods. 1. The plaintiffs are India-rubber and waterproof garment Claim for manufacturers carrying on business at Street, M. breach of warranty on sale of goods. Generally of title. When a person is liable who sells without title. (a) Warranty of title.]—If a man sells goods affirming them to be his own, that amounts to a warranty of title. But there is no implied warranty no implied of title on the bare sale of a personal chattel. (Bagueley v. Hawley, warranty L. R. 2 C. P. 625; Morley v. Attenborough, 3 Ex. 500.) The same holds on an exchange of chattels. (La Neuvelle v. Nourse, 3 Camp. 351.) To make the seller liable when it turns out he had no title, it must be shown that he was guilty of fraud in the transaction; and the concealment by the seller of defects in his title known to him amounts to fraud. (Early v. Garrett, 9 B. & C. 932.) Failing this it must be shown that there was an express warranty, or an equivalent to it, by his declarations or conduct; or that there was a usage of the particular trade by which such warranty is impliedly given. On the sale of goods in a shop kept professedly for their sale, there is an implied warranty that the purchaser has a right to keep the goods. In such a case the vendor sells the goods as his own, and that is equivalent to a warranty of title. (Per Curiam in Morley v. Attenborough, supra.) The same holds with regard to goods sold in the defendant's warehouse. (Eichholtz v. Bannester, 17 C. B. N. S. 708; 34 L. J. C. P. 105.) It appears to be different with regard to unredeemed pledges sold at an auction by a pawnbroker. (Morley v. Attenborough, supra.) And semble the same holds with regard to goods bought at any auction. (See Bagueley v. Hawley, supra.) Where the plaintiff bought some goods from the defendant at an auction at which the defendant had himself purchased them, it was held that he could not recover the price paid for them as on a warranty of title. (Chapman v. Speller, 14 Q. B. 621.) An executory contract of sale of an unascertained chattel may import a warranty of title. (See per Park, B., Morley v. Attenborough, supra.) Where there is no warranty and the |