
    Chittenden County,
    January Term, 1828.
    
    
      Thaddeus Tuttle vs. John Reynolds.
    
    Tenant cannot flisputethe title of the landlord nor of his grantee.
    
      Á disclaimer by the. tenant, of his tenancy dispenses with the necessity of notice to quit.
    This was an action of ejectment brought to recover the seizen and possession of a lot of land in Essex. At the trial before the County Court the plaintiff offered , evidence tending to prove that in die year 1817 or 1818, the lot in question was vacant, and was claimed by Guy Catlin ; and that the defendant applied to the said Catlin, for permission to enter upon and occupy the said lot under him ; which permission^ being granted by said Catlin, by parol, the defendant entered into possession accordingly, and had continued in possession up to that time ; but that previous to the commencement of the action, and up to the time of the seiz-Cn alleged in the declaration, the defendant denied the right of said Catlin, and of the plaintiff, to the premises; and disclaimed any tenancy under .either of tlrem. The plaintiff further offered to show a decree of the Court of Chancery between himself and the said Catlin, and a deed, executed in pursuance thereof, of the lot in question, by the said Catlin, to the plaintiff, but did not offer to show any other or prior title in said Catlin. To this evidence, the defendant’s counsel objected on the ground that it was not sufficient in law to entitle the plaintiff to recover. The County Court rejected the evidence and directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant; which they accordingly did.
    The cause now came before tire court on a a motion for a new trial, founded on exceptions taken by the plaintiff to the aforesaid decision of the County Court. The case was submitted without argument.
   Turner, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. It is a clear principle of law that a tenant cannot dispute the tide of his landlord. The evidence offered admits that Reynolds went into the occupation of the land in question, as a tenant of Catlin. Nor is it competent for the defendant .to dispute the tittle of Catlin’s grantee. It is immaterial, as to him, whether Catlin and Tuttle had a legal tide or not. For his occupation of the land under Cat- Un is an admission of tide, which he is forever precluded from retracting. After the transfer to Tuttle, the defendant should have attorned to him or surrendered the possession. And after refusitig to do either, and after disclaiming to hold under Cailin, notice to quit was unnecessary on the part of Catlin or his grantee. — Bul. N. P. 96. From these principles it results that the evidence should have been admitted. New trial granted.

Van JYess, for the plaintiff.

Balley\ for tile defendant.  