after the rent becomes due before being required to pay; or, in other words, that you will fix days for receiving at Christmas and Midsummer, instead of those on which the rent is reserved by the lease. Mr. Evans called on Saturday, in accordance with his promise, but was not prepared to make any payment. Should he not pay on Saturday next, I think a distress should be put in, and will thank you to let me know in the mean time the names of Mr. and Mrs. White and Miss Langharne. "HENRY MATHIAS." “1857. 25th March. Half-year's rent then due for Cotts Farm in the occupation of John Arnold 7th March. Paid Mrs. Greene in advance on account of interest 72 10 0 25.0 0 3 68 25 00 7 10 0 14 0 0 1 0 0 15 00 72 10 0 *On the 23d of February, 1858, a letter was written to the tenant, Arnold, by Messrs. Ridgway & Drake, of which the [*220 following is a copy :— "Mr. John Arnold. "London, 23d Feb. 1858. "Dear Sir,-The Bank-bills for 337. and 247. were duly received and placed to the credit of your rent. When the balance is remitted, you shall have the regular receipt. Be kind enough to bear in mind that Mr. Powell has not the slightest power to interfere with you, and never had. Although you were frightened into paying money to Mrs. Greene before, and we were willing to assist you out of that difficulty, we shall not permit such a thing again. On the contrary, we have no hesitation in holding you harmless from any attempt he may make to put in a distress as he threatens. He dares not do it; and you may tell him so. "Miss Lilla Langharne is Mrs. Greene's trustee; and she alone has the power of enforcing payment of Mrs. Greene's money: but, by a deed executed in January, the farm of Cotts became cleared of Mrs. Greene, her trustee, her mortgage, and her impertinence; and she has no more right to talk to you about your rent than Sir John Owen. The present mortgagee is a gentleman named Connell, from whom you will receive a notice about the payment of your rent, as he, intends to cut the matter short by receiving it himself, which he is at liberty to do, as he stands in the same position as Sir W. Langbarne did at his death. "Be kind enough to write us by return of post what course you intend to take, because on that will depend our own action in respect to your farm. If you pay your rent according to the notice you have received from us, you have nothing to fear: but, if not, we *cannot disguise from you the fact that matters will be brought to a very speedy issue. "RIDGWAY & DRAKE." [*221 The notice first referred to in Messrs. Ridgway & Drake's letter of the 23d of February, 1858, was in the words following: "I hereby give you notice, that, by an indenture bearing date the 18th of January, 1858, and made between Lilla Philipps Langharne, of No. 16, Great Tufton Street, in the county of Middlesex, spinster, of the one part, and myself of the other part, for the consideration therein mentioned, she the said Lilla Philipps Langharne, in whom the sum of 30007. hereinafter mentioned was then vested, and also the hereditaments and premises hereinafter mentioned, and on which the same sum is secured for the residue of a term of 1000 years, as the administratrix of her father, the late Sir William Philipps Langharne Philipps, who was the surviving trustee of the settlement made on the marriage of John Greene, Esq., and Elizabeth Philipps his wife, and to which said Sir William Philipps Langharne Philipps and his then co-trustee the said hereditaments and premises were assigned by an indenture bearing date the 13th of May, 1832, for the said term of 1000 years, subject to a proviso for redemption on payment of the sum of 3000l. thereby secured, and interest, did transfer, amongst other hereditaments, the farm, hereditaments, and premises in your occupation, called Cotts, for the remainder of the said term, and the said sum of 30007., and the interest thereby secured to me, my executors, administrators, and assigns: And I hereby give you further notice to pay your rent in future to me or to my agent authorized by me for the time being to receive the same, and to no other person or persons whomsoever. Dated the 11th day of March, 1858. "A. J. N. CONNELL, M. D." *222] *Subsequently to such notice being given as aforesaid, an action was brought in the Court of Exchequer by Dr. Connell for the sum of 1607, 10s., parcel of the arrears hereinafter mentioned to have been distrained for by the defendants; and a judgment for that amount (by default) was obtained on the 20th of May, 1859, for all rent up to Michaelmas, 1858. Afterwards, a further sum of the said rent became due and in arrear, and so remained up to the time of the distress hereinafter mentioned. And thereupon the distress in respect of which the present proceedings arise was on the 12th of June, 1860, levied by one James Jones, in pursuance of the following warrant of distress :— "Mr. James Jones, of Haverfordwest, bailiff. "We do hereby authorize and empower you to seize and distrain the goods, chattels, stock, and crops of John Arnold for the sum of 2761. Os. 7d., balance of rent due on the 25th March last under an indenture of lease dated the 25th day of March, 1837, and made between Sir William Philipps Langharne, Bart., of the first part, John Walters, Thomas Beynon, and Charles Bigstock, of the second part, and Benjamin Harries of the third part, for and in respect of the messuage, lands, and hereditaments called Cotts, situate and being in the parish of Hasguard, in the county of Pembroke; and for so doing this shall be your sufficient warrant and indemnity. Dated this 4th day of June, 1860. Yours, &c. "GEORGE RANSLEY WHITE. "SARAH ELIZABETH WHITE. "I hereby authorize and confirm the above distress. Dated this 4th day of June, 1860. Yours, &c. "A. J. N. CONNELL." *The warrant by which the distress was authorized was [*223 amongst the admissions made by the parties: but no notice was taken by counsel of the signature to the warrant; nor, after the case was reserved for consideration by the Court, was the warrant of distress forwarded with the other documents to the Judge. He naturally supposed, under such circumstances, that the warrant of distress. was in the usual form, and signed by the defendants alone: nor was it until the case was sent to him for settlement with a view to the appeal, that he was aware that the warrant of distress had been signed by any other than the defendants. The said George Ransley White, and Sarah Elizabeth White, Robert King Cross, and Lilla Philipps Cross, are the defendants in the present action of replevin: and the said A. J. N. Connell is the person named Connell mentioned in the letter of Messrs. Ridgway & Drake, and in the notice therein referred to. The distress was afterwards levied for the rent mentioned in the said authority to distrain, being 2761. Os. 7d.: but the notice of distress which was served upon the plaintiff purported to be in the names of George Ransley White and Sarah Elizabeth White his wife, and Robert King Cross and Lilla Philipps Cross his wife (the defendants in this action), alone. The goods were replevied, and the present replevin suit instituted. The cause came on for trial on the 17th of July, 1860; and in the course of the trial the documents, matters, and facts herein before stated were proved or admitted. The judgment obtained in the Court of Exchequer by Connell against Arnold was included in the list of admissions agreed upon before and acted upon at the trial. The admissibility of the lastmentioned *judgment in evidence was objected to at the trial by the defendant's counsel, on the ground that it was res inter [*224 alios acta, and that there was no privity between the parties thereto and the present defendants. The objection, however, was overruled by the Judge, as it had been previously arranged by written agreement between the parties that it should be admitted and received in evidence, and now forms one of the grounds of the present appeal: and Mr. Hare proved, that, although he had applied to Arnold, the tenant of the land in question, on the part of Dr. Connell, for rent, he had received none. Mr. Henry Mathias, a member of the firm of Powell, Mathias & Evans, solicitors at Haverfordwest, stated that he acted in the country for Mr. Ridgway, who was the agent of the defendants, the firm acting at that time for Mr. Greene; but, when the interests of the defendants and Mrs. Greene became conflicting, he declined any longer to act for Mr. Ridgway. He proved that he received in 1857 rent from Arnold, under whom the plaintiff immediately claims, and paid the balance after paying Mrs. Greene's annuity and other payments to Mr. Ridgway as agent of the defendants (vide letter of 17th April, 1857, antè, p. 219). From the evidence of John Arnold it appeared that he had paid rent for the land in question to one Joseph Lewis, who used to send it to Mrs. Greene and to Sir Godwin Philipps, and subsequently that he had paid rent to Mr. Henry Mathias. It appeared from the evidence of Mr. Evan Hare, a solicitor, that he had acted for some time for the defendants and for Dr. Connell; that the demand under the warrant of distress the subject of this action. was 2761. Os. 7.; but that, after the deduction of several payments to which the landowners were liable, it amounted to 2287. 3s. 1d., which sum included the *sum recovered by way of rent for the land *225] in question by the judgment of the Court of Exchequer in favour of Dr. Connell. It also appeared from the evidence of this witness, that he had made application, on behalf of Dr. Connell, to Arnold, for rent in respect of the land in question, but had received none; that the judgment of the Court of Exchequer of May, 1859, in favour of Dr. Connell, included the rent for the land in question up to September, 1858; and that the rent distrained for by the defendants. was for three years ending March, 1860. The question for the opinion of the Court was, whether the plaintiff or the defendants were entitled to judgment in the said action. Tomlinson (with whom was C. E. Coleridge), for the appellants. The tenant for life under the settlement grants a lease for three lives. That lease being void, the admissions set out in the case clearly show that the relation of landlord and tenant between the lessee and those claiming under him and the appellants, the tenants in tail, was created. A semblance of difficulty arises from the term of 1000 years which was vested in William Philipps Langharne and Nathaniel Philipps as trustees, which, as to one moiety, became merged in the life estate of William Philipps Langharne, the other undivided moiety remaining in Nathaniel Philipps, whose representatives are not now known. In respect of the reversion in the one undivided moiety vested in them as tenants in tail under the original settlement, the appellants were clearly entitled to distrain. [BYLES, J.-What is the consequence if one of the two tenants of the term becomes the freeholder? Is it that the one moiety merges, and that his companion has the other moiety?] That the moiety of the term merged in the life estate, is clear from *2261 Sir Ralph Bovey's Case, *Ventr. 193, cited Vin. Abr. Merger (G), pl. 16,-"The use of land is limited to A. for ninety-nine years, and that J., K., L., M., N., and O., who were feoffees to uses, should be seised to their own use in trust for A. and his heirs, with power to A. to alter and limit the trust as he should think fit. Afterwards A. on his marriage assigns the ninety-nine years' term to J. (one of the trustees) and W. R., a stranger, in trust for himself (A.) for life, remainder to his wife for life, remainder to the heirs male of their two bodies, and by the same deed limits the trust of the inheritance in the same manner. A. grants a rent-charge to Sir R. B. and his heirs, with power to enter, &c. A. and his wife die, leaving B. their son. The rent being in arrear, Sir R. B. enters. Then J. and the other trustee assign the term of ninety-nine years to B., who leased to the plaintiff in ejectment. The jury upon hearing the opinion of the Court found for the plaintiff for all save a sixth part; for, so much was drowned and surrendered by the assignment of A. to J., one of the six joint tenants of the reversion." Wiscot's Case, 2 Co. Rep. 60 b, is to the same effect. "A., tenant for life, the remainder to B. and three others for life, the reversion to C. and his heirs expectant: C. levied a fine sur conusance de droit come ceo, &c., to A. and B., to the use of B. for life, and after his death to the use of B. in fee: A. died, and afterwards B. died: and, whether the jointure was severed or not, so that, after the death of A., B. was tenant in common, was the question. And it was resolved that the jointure was severed; and this difference taken,--when the fee simple is limited by one and the same conveyance, there the one may have a fee simple and the other an estate for life, jointly; but, when they are first tenants for life, and afterwards one of them doth get the fee simple, or the fee simple doth descend to one, there the jointure is severed." *Montague Smith, Q. C. (with whom was 7. Allen), for the respondent. It cannot be denied that under the circumstances [*227 one moiety of the term did merge in Sir William Langharne, the other moiety remaining in Nathaniel Philipps. But, at the same time, it is clear that all the parties treated this as a subsisting term, and that it vested in Dr. Connell,-a blunder to which the respondent was no party. It is submitted, however, that Dr. Connell having been held out to the tenants as the person entitled to the reversion, and having a right to receive the rent, and they having come in under Dr. Connell, it is too late for the appellants now to turn round and say that they were mistaken. [WILLIAMS, J., referred to Doe d. Hig. ginbotham v. Barton, 11 Ad. & E. 307 (E. C. L. R. vol. 39), 3 P. & D. 194.] In Pickard v. Sears, 6 Ad. & E. 469 474 (E. C. L. R. vol. 33), 2 N. & P. 488, Lord Denman, delivering the judgment of the Court, says: "The rule of law is clear, that, where one by his words or conduct wilfully causes another to believe the existence of a certain state of things, and induces him to act on that belief, so as to alter his own previous position, the former is concluded from averring against the latter a different state of things as existing at the same time." And that is confirmed by Gregg v. Wells, 10 Ad. & E. 90 (E. C. L. R. vol. 37), 2 P. & D. 296, and Freeman v. Cooke, 2 Exch. 654.+ The letter of the 23d of February, 1858, from Messrs. Ridgway & Blake, the attorneys for the appellants, fully warranted the tenant in assuming that Dr. Connell alone was the person entitled to receive the rent: and it is not competent to them now to say that that representation was the result of mistake. Tomlinson, in reply.-The utmost extent of the effect of the representation made by Ridgway & Blake would be to excuse the tenant for having in pursuance of their letter paid rent to Dr. Connell. It may be *conceded also, that suffering judgment by default in an action for the rent would be equivalent to payment. But the [*228 doctrine of Pickard v. Sears has never been held to apply to the conveyance of land, or to affect title. In Lyon ". Reed, 13 M. & W. 285, 309, Parke, B., in delivering the judgment of the Court of Exchequer, says: "The acts in pais which bind parties by way of estoppel are but few, and are pointed out by Lord Coke, Co. Litt. 352 a. They are all acts which anciently really were, and in contemplation of law have always continued to be, acts of notoriety, not less formal and solemn than the .execution of a deed, such as lery, entry, acceptance of an estate, and the like." Besides, it must not be lost sight of that these parties were married women, incapable of appointing attor neys, and therefore not bound by any representation made by persons assuming to act in that capacity for them. ERLE, C. J.-I am of opinion that our judgment in this case ought |