Legal Definitions - quare ejecit infra terminum

Quare ejecit infra terminum was a historical legal action available to a tenant (lessee) who had been wrongfully removed from a property before their lease agreement had expired. This specific legal remedy was used when the person who originally caused the tenant's premature eviction was no longer in possession of the property. Instead, the property was occupied by another individual who had acquired it from the original ejector.

The purpose of this action was to allow the wrongfully evicted tenant to regain possession of their leased property for the remainder of their term and to receive compensation for the damages suffered due to the unlawful eviction.

Here are some examples illustrating how this historical legal action would apply:

• Scenario 1: Landlord sells property after eviction
  A tenant holds a valid five-year lease on a commercial storefront. Two years into the lease, the landlord, wanting to sell the property quickly for a higher price without the encumbrance of a long-term tenant, illegally evicts the business. The landlord then sells the property to a new developer. The developer, unaware of the prior illegal eviction, takes possession.

  This scenario fits quare ejecit infra terminum because the tenant was prematurely ejected. The original ejector (the landlord) is no longer in possession. Instead, the developer, who acquired the property by purchase (thus "claiming under" the original landlord), is now in possession.

• Scenario 2: Property transferred as a gift after eviction
  A property owner leases a small cottage to a tenant for a three-year term. Six months into the lease, the owner decides they want the cottage for their personal use and unlawfully forces the tenant out. Shortly after, the owner gifts the cottage to their adult child, who then moves in and occupies the property.

  Here, the tenant was wrongfully evicted before their lease ended. The original ejector (the property owner) is no longer the one occupying the cottage. Instead, the owner's child, who received the property as a gift (thereby "claiming under" the original owner), is now in possession, making this a situation where the writ would apply.

• Scenario 3: Mortgagee takes possession after landlord's default
  A business leases a manufacturing facility for a ten-year term. The landlord, facing severe financial difficulties, illegally terminates the lease and evicts the business, hoping to quickly find a new tenant at a higher rate. Before a new tenant can be secured, the landlord defaults on their mortgage, and the bank, as the mortgagee, takes possession of the property.

  In this case, the business was prematurely ejected. The original ejector (the landlord) is no longer in possession. The bank, having taken possession due to the landlord's default, can be considered as "claiming under" the landlord's title (as the mortgagee in possession), thus fitting the criteria for this historical legal action.