John Stapleton brought a writ of waste in three villages where it was pleaded that one place which was called a village was a hamlet of one of the other villages named in the writ and they were at issue on this in relation to the whole writ. And by nisi prius before STOWFORD, J. it was found that each was a separate village and he enquired further relating to the waste and it was found that waste had been committed in two villages, namely in such a building and in such a building etc. (with the value of each being given) which had been wasted and destroyed for lack of roofing and also in woods to the value of such etc. to the damages of such. And it was mentioned by SHARESHILL, J. that the damages for the tenements wasted in the third village (which waste by the plea pleaded even though the reverse was found will be considered as not denied) ought not to have been the subject of an enquiry for this enquiry as to waste was not warranted either by statute or by common law for at common law there was not enquiry into waste except where the waste was denied in pleading nor did statute warrant it except by the defendant’s default.
WILLOUGHBY, J. said that there needed to be an enquiry as to waste.
Green. Whatever the law may be we agree to have judgment in accordance with the verdict.
SHARDLOW, J.. Then we are discharged.
WILLOUGHBY, J.. The court therefore adjudges that the plaintiff recovers the places wasted and damages in triplicate as assessed etc. which amount to so much etc. and the plaintiff to be amerced in respect of his complaint in regard to the third village where no waste was found.
Green asked for execution in the lands which he had on the day the plea was pleaded.
STONOR, C.J.. You will first have execution generally on that which he has and if the sheriff returns that he has nothing you will have execution then on the lands which he had on the day the inquest was taken and you will have no more.
And note that Mowbray mentioned to delay judgment first that it had not been found that the tenants had committed the waste (and that it is not in the charge of the court for they should find it whoever had committed the waste); and also in the buildings it was not waste that was found but lack of roofing.
Hilary said that the verdict said that for lack of roofing they had become wasted and destroyed and so we understand that they are wasted.
And it was mentioned by some that if they were unroofed even if the timber was still standing it will be adjudged waste.
And note that a writ of waste brought in Barton where there was traverse that there was no Barton without addition and by inquest taken before INGE, J. the writ was found good and he did not enquire further as to waste. The court remanded for further inquiry for even though the writ was found good the land cannot be lost unless the waste is found etc.
Citations:
[1344] [Viner 438, no. 16]
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196929