In a writ of waste the plaintiff made a declaration through Danby and assigned as waste the felling of one hundred oaks and also the waste made to the stumps of these same oaks.
Bingham. It appears by the count that the waste is assigned in respect of the same thing twice over, namely the cutting down of the oaks is one waste assigned and the other is of the growth on the stumps of the same oaks, but this is in law all one waste.
NEWTON AND PORTINGTON, JJ. AND ALL THE COURT. These are different wastes because if the growth growing from the stumps had been safely looked after it would have grown eventually back into oaks. For if a tenant for life cuts down forty oaks and afterwards perhaps continues in possession for twenty years and then because they are well grown he cuts them at the same place the reversioner will have an action of waste and may count of both wastes and recover triple damages twice over.
Bingham. How can that be? For the plaintiff in an action of waste aims to recover the place wasted and he cannot recover it twice.
NEWTON AND PORTINGTON, JJ. That is true. He ought to recover the place wasted just once but the damages in triplicate twice.
And then the defendant pleaded: no waste committed etc.
Citations:
[1443] [Co. Litt. 53a (i)]
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.196966