Hutton v Warren [1836] EWHC Exch J61 is a foundational decision in English contract and landlord-tenant law. It established that local customs can be implied into tenancy agreements unless explicitly excluded. They can be just as binding as written terms.
| Court: Court of Exchequer, England and Wales |
| Citation: [1836] EWHC Exch J61; (1836) 150 ER 517 |
| Judge: Parke, B. |
| Month of Judgment: April 1836 |
| Legal Area: Landlord-Tenant Law, Custom and Usage, Implied Terms in Contracts |
Facts – Hutton v Warren
The plaintiff (Hutton) was a tenant of glebe land and tithes in Wroot, Lincolnshire, originally under a lease with the defendant’s father (the prior rector), beginning in 1811.
In 1832, the defendant (Warren), the new rector, took over after his father’s resignation. Hutton remained on the land as a tenant (despite the original lease being expired on the lessor’s resignation).
Hutton had cultivated and sowed the land as per the local customary course of husbandry.
Upon being asked to vacate in 1834, he claimed a customary allowance for seeds, labour, and tillage done before vacating—typical for an “off-going tenant.”
The defendant refused to pay, arguing that the lease did not provide for such payments.
Legal Issue
Did the terms of the lease exclude the local custom of compensation for seed and labor?
Judgment
The court ruled in favor of the tenant.
After the lease expired and the defendant’s father resigned, the plaintiff held the farm from the new rector (the defendant) under the same terms.
It was held that the custom of the country was part of the contract, unless clearly excluded. Customary rights, like allowance for seeds and labour, can be implied in a tenancy from year to year—even if the original lease is silent or expired.
The lease did not expressly exclude the custom of compensation for sowing and tillage.
Citing Wigglesworth v. Dallison, the court held that custom can supplement written agreements unless directly contradicted.
Therefore, Hutton was entitled to the compensation.
Parke, B. stated as under:
“The custom of the country as to cultivation and the terms of quitting with respect to allowances for seed and labour, is clearly applicable to a tenancy from year to year; and therefore, if this custom was, by implication, imported into the lease, the plaintiff and defendant were bound by it after the lease expired.”
“We are of opinion that this custom was, by implication, imported into the lease.”
Refer to the full text of the case here:
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Exch/1836/J61.html
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:
- Vadasz v Pioneer Concrete (SA) Pty Ltd [1995] HCA 14
- Nemeth v Bayswater Road Pty Ltd [1988] 2 Qd R 406
- Robinson v Graves [1935]: Service Contract or Sales Agreement?
Ruchi is a legal research writer with an academic background in CA, MBA (Finance), and M.Com. She specializes in digesting and summarizing complex judicial decisions into clear and structured case notes for students and legal professionals.