1849. DOE d. CHIPPINDALE and Others v. ROE. Jan. 29. to recover lease, the shewing ser CHANNELL, Serjt., moved for judgment against the In ejectment casual ejector. The premises consisted of eight houses, numbered respectively 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, in Little James Street, Marylebone. As to Nos. 13, 15, and 16, the service was either upon the tenants in possession personally, or upon their respective wives, upon the premises. As to Nos. 12 and 14, the affidavit stated that the premises were unoccupied and shut up, and that the deponent, being judgment unable to discover the last tenants in possession against the casual ejector, thereof, affixed a copy of the declaration and notice upon an on the door of each of the houses, such notices being affidavit directed to Hannah Elizabeth Woodford, the land- vice of the lady thereof as hereinafter mentioned. And, as to declaration and notice, Nos. 17, 18, and 19, the affidavit stated that they were uninhabited, deserted, and shut up, and in a very dilapidated state, and that the deponent, being unable to discover the last tenants in possession of such three last-mentioned houses, affixed a copy of the declaration and notice on the respective outer doors, directed to Phabe Hall, the landlady thereof as hereinafter mentioned. The affidavit then went on to state, that the whole of the premises were comprised in and held under one lease thereof granted in the year 1808 to one Robert Drinkwater, for a term not yet expired by effluxion of time, but that the deponent had been informed, and believed, that such lease was forfeited; that the Hannah Elizabeth Woodford was, as the deponent had said by affixing copies on the outer doors, the premises being unoccupied and shut up, and by serving two persons who claimed to be as signees re- and they afterwards made the rule absolute, upon affidavit of the service thereof in the same way. 1849. DOE d. v. ROE. been informed, and believed, the assignee of such lease as regarded the houses Nos. 12, 13, and 14; that the said Phœbe Hall, as the deponent had been informed, CHIPPINDALE and believed, was the assignee of such lease as regarded the houses numbered 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19; that the said Hannah Elizabeth Woodford and Phœbe Hall were respectively duly served with copies of the said declaration and notice; and that one Charles Hall, the son of Phoebe Hall, who collected her rents, informed the deponent, on the 9th instant, that several of the copies of the declaration and notice so served and affixed by the deponent, and which had been received by him the said Charles Hall from several of the tenants, had been given over by him the said Charles Hall, to Mr. Arundell, who the deponent knew to be the solicitor of the said Phoebe Hall, from his having corresponded in that capacity with the attorneys for the lessors of the plaintiff respecting that portion of the premises of which the said Phabe Hall claimed to be the owner. The learned serjeant referred to Doe d. Pope v. Roe (a), where, in ejectment for seven houses adjoining each other, and all held under one lease, the tenants of four of them having been duly served, the court granted a serviceable rule absolute as to the other three, which were empty, upon an affidavit stating that the tenant [the lessee] had died intestate and insolvent, and that copies of the declaration and notice had been affixed on the outer doors of the three houses, and a copy served on one D., the attorney for one Jones, who had been accustomed to receive the rents; and he submitted, that, though not precisely similar in its facts, it was an authority for the present motion. (a) 7 M. & G. 602., 8 Scott, N. R. 321. WILDE, C. J. In that case the lessee had gone to America. (a) Here, your affidavit does not shew what has become of Drinkwater, the lessee. MAULE, J. The premises being all held under one lease, the lessor of the plaintiff need not proceed as upon a vacant possession: Doe d. Timothy v. Roe. (b) WILDE, C. J. Take a rule absolute as to the pre mises in respect of which the service has been regular; and, as to the rest, a rule nisi, - the service to be by affixing a copy on the door or other conspicuous part of the houses, and by serving a copy on Hannah Elizabeth Woodford and Phoebe Hall, and also upon Mr. Arundell. On a subsequent day, upon affidavit of service in the manner directed, the rule was made (a) The marginal note so states, but mistakenly: the circumstance of the tenant having absconded to America, in truth, Absolute. occurred in Doe d. Osbaldiston 1849. DOE d. CHIPPINDALE v. ROE. DOE d. BENNET v. ROE. HEWSON, on a former day in this term, obtained a rule nisi for judgment against the casual ejector, upon an affidavit stating that the deponent, on the 5th Jan. 31. The court granted a rule for judgment against the casual ejector, where the premises were held under lease by several persons trading under the firm of W., F., & Co., upon an affidavit of service of the declaration and notice upon the manager of the works, upon the premises, and of personal service on one of the firm, the affidavit stating them to be joint-tenants of the premises. 1849. DOE d. BENNET v. ROE. of January, 1849, served Michael Williams, one of the clerks in the office of Messrs. Williams, Foster, & Co., tenants in possession of the premises mentioned in the declaration annexed, with a true copy of the said declaration and notice; that the said office is at the copper-works of the said Messrs. Williams, Foster, & Co., part of which said works were on the premises mentioned in the declaration; that the deponent had been informed, and believed, that the said company called Williams, Foster, & Co., consisted of the several persons named in the notice thereunto annexed, viz. John Williams, Michael Williams, William Williams, John Michael Williams, Collan Harvey, Richard Harvey, Joseph Talwyn Foster, Sampson Foster, and John Sampson, and that they were joint-tenants of the premises mentioned in the declaration, a lease of the premises sought to be recovered in this action having been granted to the said John Williams, Michael Williams, William Williams, John Michael Williams, Collan Harvey, Richard Harvey, Joseph Talwyn Foster, Sampson Foster, and John Sampson, jointly, on the 8th of September, 1838; that the deponent had occasion to go to the said works of the said company on the 6th of January, 1849, when he saw James Pooley, the agent and manager of the said works, who produced to the deponent the said declaration and notice, and informed him that he the said James Pooley was about inclosing them to Joseph Talwyn Foster, one of the partners in the said firm of Williams, Foster, & Co., and acquaint him of the service thereof; that the said James Pooley also informed the deponent, that the only partner in the said company with whom he held communication relative to the business of the said company's copperworks, was, the said Joseph Talwyn Foster; and that the deponent, on the 9th of January, 1849, personally served the said Joseph Talwyn Foster with a true copy of the said declaration and notice. Channell, Serjt., on behalf of three of the parties, Michael Williams, Richard Harvey, and Sampson Foster, -shewed cause, upon affidavits that neither of them had been served with any declaration, or had any notice or knowledge of any ejectment having been brought against the firm, until served with the rule nisi; and also an affidavit of one of the attorneys of Williams, Foster, & Co., stating, that he was served with the rule nisi on the 27th instant; that the members of the firm of Williams, Foster, & Co., are resident at various places; that he had written to the various members, and had received from Michael Williams, Sampson Foster, and Richard Harvey, respectively, affidavits in opposition to the rule, but had received no affidavits from the other members of the firm; that he was unable to obtain a copy of the affidavit upon which the rule was obtained, until the 30th instant, and that, until he obtained an office copy of such affidavit, he was ignorant that it was alleged therein that the several persons therein named were joint-tenants of the premises for the recovery whereof this action was brought; that he had been informed, and believed, that two of the persons named in the said affidavit, viz. Collan Harvey and John Sumpson have been long deceased; that Michael Henry Williams, who was a partner in the said firm of Williams, Foster, & Co., was not named in the affidavit upon which this rule was obtained, or in the notice to appear subjoined to the declaration in this action; that Joseph Talwyn Foster is not the managing or sole acting partner in the said firm; and that, although by reason of his the said Joseph Talwyn Foster's being resident in London, he generally acted in the London business of the said firm, there 1849. DOE d. BENNET V. ROE. |