Hutton v Warren [1836] EWHC Exch J61 (April 1836)

A tenant farmer claimed compensation for seed and labour upon quitting the farm, relying on the custom of the country. The landlord argued the written lease excluded such customary allowances. The Court held that customs of the country are implied into leases unless expressly or impliedly excluded, and the tenant was entitled to recover.

Facts

The plaintiff, Hutton, became tenant of a farm and glebe land in 1811 under a lease from Dr Warren, the incumbent rector. The lease expired in 1817 but the plaintiff continued in occupation. In 1832, Dr Warren resigned and his son, the defendant, succeeded him. In 1833, the defendant gave notice to quit. During discussions, the defendant insisted the plaintiff cultivate according to the custom of the country. The plaintiff sowed the land as required and, upon quitting at Lady Day 1834, claimed customary allowances for seed and labour as an off-going tenant.

The Lease

The original lease contained a covenant requiring the tenant to consume three-fourths of the hay and straw on the land, spread the manure, and leave any remaining manure for the landlord at a reasonable price. It contained no express provision regarding allowances for seed and labour upon quitting.

Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff was bound by the terms of the original lease after the resignation of the lessor and the commencement of tenancy under the defendant.

2. Whether the terms of the lease excluded the plaintiff’s entitlement to customary allowances for seed and labour on quitting.

Judgment

The Court of Exchequer, delivering judgment through Parke B., held in favour of the plaintiff.

Holding Under the Lease

The Court held that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the plaintiff was taken to have held under the defendant on the same terms as under his father, so far as those terms were applicable to a tenancy from year to year.

Implied Custom of the Country

Parke B. affirmed the principle that extrinsic evidence of custom and usage is admissible to annex incidents to written contracts where they are silent on a matter. This applies to leases, with customs being implied unless the parties expressly or impliedly exclude them.

The Court observed that the common law provides little guidance on the duties of landlord and tenant regarding cultivation, leaving the tenant at liberty unless guilty of waste. Courts have therefore been inclined to recognise customary regulations as beneficial to all parties.

Application to the Present Case

The lease contained only one clause relating to farm management: the obligation to consume hay and straw on the premises and leave manure for payment. The Court found this clause related principally to tithes and introduced a new obligation beyond the custom, rather than excluding the customary rights to allowances for seed and labour. Unlike the situation in Webb v Plummer, there was no covenant to plough and sow with a stipulation for limited payment that would exclude other allowances by implication.

Implications

This case established the important principle that the custom of the country regarding agricultural tenancies is implied into written leases unless the parties expressly or by necessary implication exclude such custom. The decision confirmed that partial stipulations in a lease do not automatically exclude all customary obligations; the custom will only be displaced where the lease specifically addresses the same subject matter and provides for different arrangements.

The case remains a foundational authority on the incorporation of trade customs and local usages into contracts, particularly in landlord and tenant relationships.

Verdict: Rule discharged. The plaintiff was entitled to recover customary allowances for seed and labour as the custom of the country was implied into the lease and was not excluded by its terms.

Source: Hutton v Warren [1836] EWHC Exch J61 (April 1836)