and, then if the tenant neglects, or refuses to renew, he is under the further difficulty of preserving the evidence of such demand, until the dropping of the remaining lives and expiration of the existing lease.

In the present case, the first of the lives dropt so early as January, 1789. The landlord probably was ignorant of that fact; whether the tenant knew of it or not, does not appear. Now, suppose the landlord had called on the tenant to renew, and had made formal demand of the fine; yet he would have been put under the difficulty of preserving the evidence of that demand, as long as the lease continued by the existence of the other two lives. This is a very considerable difficulty, and I know not how it is to be obviated, unless courts of equity will entertain a new jurisdiction, and permit the landlord, after making such demand, to file a bill to exclude the tenant from the benefit of renewal; and even in this proceeding, he would be put to great expense in barring the right of the tenant.

Another life dropt in 1791, and no attempt was made by the tenant to renew. There were then two defaults on the part of the tenant, which defaults I am to attribute to mere neglect. It is a neglect however of long continuance.

On the 1st March, 1799, the lease of the other moiety of these lands was renewed by Mr. Saunders, and Mr. Jackson was then in truth called on to renew for the moiety in question, though no formal demand was made on him ; nothing that would operate to exclude him from renewal under this act. But Mr. R. Saunders, at the time the lease of the 1st March, 1799, was executed, stated to Jackson, which he did not deny, that Saunders was informed two of the lives in the lease of this moiety were gone; and desired to know when Jackson would be ready to pay the renewal fines.

1804.

JACKSON

υ.

SAUNDERS.

Now really, if the act of parliament were out of the case, I ought to hold that there was a neglect on the part of Jackson, commencing in March 1799; and the transactions which have happened subsequent to that time could properly be argued upon by Jackson in a court of equity only thus: "True, I was called upon in March 1799, to pay

this fine; true, I have not paid it, nor taken any steps "to pay it; but Mr. Saunders has been from time to time "indulgent to me on the subject, and it was this indul

gence that led me to omit making a formal tender." But let us suppose the act had not passed and attend a little to the subsequent circumstances. In the course of the year 1800, there is an express promise on the part of Jackson, to pay the money, and a reference to his own agent, Mr. Peter Jackson, as if the money were actually in his hands: Saunders' agent thereupon calls upon Jackson's agent for the money, who answers that he has not the money, and that Jackson has misrepresented the facts. A correspondence takes place between Jackson and his agent; and Jackson directs that the very money which the agent wished to apply to the renewal of the lease, should be applied for the benefit of his daughter. I should think, if this act had not been made, that these circumstances of misconduct on the part of Mr. Jackson, taking them in the most favourable light, would incline a court of equity not to assist him against the forfeiture of his right of renewal, if the case had rested on these circumstances. Then consider these circumstances in reference to the act, and the subsequent transactions. On the 9th of July, 1800, a letter is written by Mr. R. Saunders to Jackson, the purport of which was, that having made repeated application, and Mr. Jackson having done nothing but amuse and deceive Mr. Saunders, he would be under the necessity of taking proceedings under the act, to exclude Jackson finally. Jackson in his answer to this, on the 17th of July, says, that he would shortly be writing

to his solicitor, Mr. Peter Jackson, and would give directions to him to have the fine paid. Mr. R. Saunders waits on Mr. P. Jackson, in consequence of this letter, but no fine is forth-coming. It is said that I am not to take notice of these previous dealings between landlord and tenant, Nothing could be more mischievous to tenants than to hold this; for the result would be, that the first step every landlord would be compelled to take, must be to give notice. If all his prior indulgence is to be turned against him, it would be absurd to grant any; and it would be the duty of every agent employed to manage property of this kind, to serve the formal demand in the first instance; which might often be very injurious to the tenants. I think therefore that I must take all these circumstances into consideration in forming a judgment whether the default of Jackson after demand ought to be deemed wilful default within the meaning of the statute.

In the month of August, 1800, Mr. R. Saunders writes to Mr. Jackson, complaining of his conduct, and stating that he could not, without doing material injustice to his client, forbear to proceed under the statute; and really enough had passed to provoke him highly, considering all the indulgence that had been given to Mr. Jackson, and that an actual, though not a formal, demand had been made on him near eighteen months before. Then in October, 1800, a demand is made, which I take to be a sufficient demand under the statute; it being a demand intended to exclude Jackson from renewal, in case of non-compliance, and the act not having prescribed any particular form for such demand. The notice was for renewal only of two lives, Saunders being then ignorant, but Jackson knowing, that the third life had then dropt. It is said that there was great liberality in Jackson's informing Saunders that the third life had dropt; but as to that, it was economical in Jackson to renew for

1804.

JACKSON

v.

SAUNDERS.

The statute has not prescribed demand. It is any form for the good, though

not in writing,

1804.

JACKSON

υ.

SAUNDERS.

the three lives by one lease, rather than incur the expense of separate renewals. And when an argument is founded on the smallness of the sum to be raised, I think it turns the other way; for the smaller the sum, the less difficulty would there be in raising it: and that applies particularly when I hear an analogy attempted to be drawn from the case of rents, which are supposed to be a full value for the lands, in those cases at least which apply to the immediate occupying tenant; and an analogy from mortgages, which generally speaking, bear a very considerable proportion, not merely to the rent, but to the value of the fee-simple itself. Such arguments appear to me to be used without attending to the rights of the landlord and tenant under thèse leases; which are, that each should be secured in what he con tracted for; that the landlord should regularly receive that which he had stipulated to receive; and that the tenure should be kept up. For, I know no reason why these leases ever came into practice in this country, instead of fee farm grants, but that the situation of the country, the habits of the people, and the manner in which rents were paid, made it more beneficial to the landlord. I have heard that landlords are not willing to convert this tenure into fee farm grants, because they have such difficulty in recovering their rents, when compelled to enforce payment by the ordinary means for the recovery of such rents. If proper means were found for the recovery of rents reserved in fee farm grants, they would be more beneficial to the country than these leases, the nature of which leads to continual litigation. When it is considered that these leases are often granted by persons who have themselves renewable interests; necessary that and that the means which such persons have to pay their persons holding rent and fines arise from the rent and fines payable by their under it should be obliged to tenants, who may themselves have underlet to others, and use diligence in such under-letting repeated four or five times; if the person who has the reservation on the last under letting (and ༢༩པོ་

Considering

the nature of this tenure, it is

paying rene wal Lines.

who is to renew with his immediate landlord, and he with another, and so on) is to encounter a considerable delay after a demand of this description, I do not know what security the intervening persons have for their property; for if the person last holding withholds payment from his immediate landlord, all the intermediate tenures may be put in great hazard. I therefore think it desirable that somewhat of strict rule should be held on persons who have estates of this description, in order to make them diligent: and this I take to be the true meaning of the act; that the landlord should not be at liberty to take advantage of mere neglect, but that he might avail himself of wilful default; that is, nonpayment of the money within a reasonable time after demand.

1804.

JACKSON

υ.

SAUNDERS.

What is reasonable time must in all cases be considered What is reasonable time must according to the circumstances. In all mercantile transac- always be contions reasonable time is extremely short; and I believe it will sidered according to the cirbe found very wisely so, for many reasons; but among cumstances. others, because in mercantile transactions, every thing de pends on payment at the day. In mercantile transactions, the holder of a bill must tender it on the day it becomes due; if not paid, it must be protested instantly, and notice given forthwith, or as soon as circumstances will permit: if a draft is given on a banker, it is to be demanded on the day it is given, and if it be not, it is at the risque of the party holding the draft, and all this depends upon what is due diligence in the particular case, which is to be judged of by certain rules and by the practice and habits of the people, and in some cases must be left to the fair discretion of jurors.

In a case similar to one now before me, where the tenure happens to be complicated in the manner I have mentioned, the regularity of payment of all the different gradations must depend on the regular payment of the holder under the last