It was presented in King’s Bench that John P. who held the manor of E. and H. of the king’s lease had committed waste in the tenements which he had in wardship by reason of the nonage of John the son and heir of John Darcy knight, namely by knocking down certain houses and cutting down certain trees etc. J.P. came by the process of distraint and pleaded by Cavendish with regard to the houses no waste committed; with regard to the trees he says they were knocked down by the great wind and others have carried them off; and asks for judgment whether he has committed any wrong. To which Kirkton (for the King) said that inasmuch as he was guardian he might have had a writ of trespass for what was in his wardship and carried off by a stranger and so as a consequence he is answerable to the heir and thus also to the King. Judgment.
Cavendish. When by law we are excused of waste of the principal we are also excused of waste of the accessory; but even if he had himself burned the trees no action of waste would have been maintainable against him.
Knivet. Even though he is guardian of the minor and the trees which have fallen down are severed from the free tenement he still has no property in the chattels but it belongs to the heir for which [he]will have his action of trespass against a stranger, and not the guardian etc. No more would the bailiff of a manor have an action of trespass in these circumstances.
Ingleby. If the guardian had put this towards the improvement of the manor he would be excused because this would come to the profit of the minor. So it seems that he is answerable to the minor for this chattel.
Knivet. Neither by way of waste nor by [way] of trespass.
Kirkton. If the posts of a house are standing and the remainder has decayed (eschu) if the guardian demolishes this and carries it off or sells it he will have an action of waste against his guardian.
Cavendish. He would not for it is necessary to assign the waste as committed in respect of a house and he cannot say that.
Knivet. A house newly built and not yet roofed was demolished by a guardian and it was not accounted waste. And this was adjudged Easter 39 [E 3] in a writ of waste.
Citations:
[1366] [Liber Assisarum 40 E3 plea 22 on p. 243], [Co Litt 53a (b)]
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: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.196938