« EelmineJätka »
with a case affected by the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, I was told by one of the members that a case had been heard by one of the judges, when the point was settled.
NEW DRAINAGE SYSTEM-LIABILITY OF OWNERS.
(For Replies to this Query, see p. 424.)
Are there any recent decisions as to the liability of owners to alter fittings of w.c.'s on connection of houses with new drainage system, such fittings (flushing tanks and pipes) having been approved by the officers of the same authority when the houses were built, about twelve years since?
COMBINED DRAINAGE.-PROPORTIONATE LIABILITY OF DIFFERENT
(For Replies to this Query see p. 424.)
The above five houses are situated within the metropolitan area, and are leased Nos. 1 and 2 to A, Nos. 3 and 4 to B, and No.5 to C. They are drained by a combined operation passing under one of B's houses, and an easement is reserved for passage of soil, &c., in the leases under which each house is held ; nothing is stated as to paying for the repairs of the combined drain.
Upon the Sanitary Authorities serving B with a notice to repair the portion of the combined drain passing under No. 3, he asks A and C to bear a proportionate share of the expense. Are they legally liable for any share, and if so, would it be in proportion to their respective holdings, i.e. A two-fifths, B two-fifths, and C one-fifth ?
LANDLORD AND TENANT-FURNISHED HOUSE.
(For Replies to this Query, see p. 42.7.) A rents of B a furnished house for a term of one year on the usual agreement, “tr keep the premises, furniture, and effects clean and in “good condition, and so leave the same, fair wear and tear excepted, and to “ pay for or replace at the end of his term all damaged and missing " articles."
Can A be charged for sweeping the chimneys, and also for taking up and beating the carpets ?
The chimneys were all swept and the carpets beaten at the commencement of A's tenancy.
LANDLORD AND TENANT-REPAIRS.
(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 425, 428.) In an agreement for three years there is contained this clause—“ the tenant to keep and leave the premises in repair.” The tenant having left the premises after seven years' occupation, landlord's agent now claims painting the interior of the house and repapering throughout, partly on the ground of damage by nails, &c., and partly from the work being required to relet the house, as the old painting and graining &c., is nearly worn out. In Bannister Fletcher's “ Dilapidations," chapter ii., table ? (10), it is stated that if the covenant to repair be general a literal performance is not required, but only substantial repair (reference to Harris v. Jones, 1 Mo. and Rob., 173). Again, in chapter iii., section 2, a. similar interpretation of the clause is given, with a reference to Gutteridge v. Munyard, 1 Mo. and Rob., 334, &c. The damage by nails, &c., is very trifling as a matter of fact. Can the landlord legally claim for painting and papering ?
COPYHOLD—MISDESCRIPTION OF LAND-RIGHTS OF LORD.
(For Replies to this Query, sce pp. 426, 427.) A small manor in the Eastern Counties on which the fines are arbitrary has recently changed hands, and the former owner has assigned to the new lord all outstanding fines and other profits.
A copyhold to which the last tenant was admitted in 1837 is now claimed by a person who declines to take admission. The quit rent of 5s. per annum has been regularly paid up to the present time, and the claimant of the land now asserts that it has become his freehold subject to the rent of 58., and that all other claims of the lord of the manor have become barred by lapse of time.
A General Court Baron was held in 1864, at which the last copyhold tenant was present, and he died about 1869 or 1870. No general court was held since 1864 until last year, when a court was held by the new lord, and the present claimant summoned to attend, but he did not do so.
He also grounds lis' objection on the fact that the copyhold cannot be identified, and that the lord cannot tell what land to seize. The question of identity is difficult. because of an error (as alleged by the lord) on the court roils, the property being therein described as on the east side of the road, whereas the present condition of the land on the west side fairly corresponds with the description, and there is nothing at all like it on the east side of the road.
Has the lord the right to seize if he can identify the land, or is his right barred by lapse of time?
If he cannot identify the land, bas the lord any other right to compel admission?
The custom of the manor is that after the death of a tenant the lord may cause three proclamations to be made at successive courts, and if no one comes to be admitted he may seize the copyhold tenement.
The same person also holds land of the same mauor in succession to his father, a freehold tenant, at a yearly free rent of £1, a relief of £1 payable to the lord on death or sale and suit of court.
The father died more than twelve years ago, and the free rent has since been regularly paid.
All the freehold tenants (except this one) have attended the recent court and acknowledge free tenure, as well as paid the reliefs due to the lord, entries of which have, according to custom, been made on the court rolls.
In this case the present tenant claims that the lord cannot compel acknowledgment, and that the lords's right to the relief both now and in future is barred by lapse of time.
Can the lord compel a freehold tenant to attend his court and acknowledge free tenure where such is the custom of the manor ?
Can he do so when the last tenant has been dead more than twelve years?
Is the lord's right to the relief barred in this case by lapse of time?
Will he have the right to claim the relief on the next change of tenants, or is his right to future reliefs also gone ?
If the lord cannot compel acknowledgment, can he make any valid entry on the court rolls in any other way so as to better secure his right to future reliefs ?
LONDON BUILDING ACT, 1894, SECTION 90-PARTY-WALL NOTICES.
(For Replies to this Query, sce pp. 427, 428.) A party-wall or party-structure notice under Section 90 is served on the adjoining premises, addressed to “Owner,” without any name, in accordance with Section 188, Sub-sections 1 and 3.
The adjoining occupier (a person entitled to a notice) acts in accordance with the Act and appoints a surveyor, and an award is made in the usual manner.
The adjoining owner is a tenant for years, his superior lessors and the freeholder do not come forward within 14 days, and the building owner gives notice (addressed again to “ Owner") that a surveyor should be appointed (Section 91, Sub-section 3), and in default the building owner appoints his own surveyor, who makes an award between the building owner and the adjoining freeholder and his lessee and sub-lessee (excluding the occupier).
Can such an award be upset if not appealed against within 14 days ?
The building owner knows the names and addresses of the adjoining owners, but does not communicate with them; he simply serves notices on “Owner," and the occupier does not communicate with his lessors, who know nothing of the award until several weeks after it has been made.
A and B are different owners of two plots of ground upon which there are built houses as shown. An intermediate plot extending from A's to B’s plot is purchased by A, who divides it into two as indicated by the dotted line, and sells portion b to B, retaining portion a for himself.
B wants to enlarge his house up to the dotted boundary, but A objects.
The matter stands thus : the three plots were originally sold by a land society (now defunct), who issued certain covenants, which were signed by both parties. A clause in these covenants says, “No house shall be built within four feet of the boundary of a plot." B says that the halfportion b is not a plot, but is half a plot, and therefore the clause does not apply. But the covenants also say, “ No house shall be built nearer than eight feet to another house."
Do the covenants of the land society still hold good after the decease of the society ? Are the purchasers legally bound to adhere to those covenants ? Or (to put it differently) can A prevent B building within four feet of the dotted line ?
It may be mentioned that A proposes to enlarge his house to a distance of four feet from the dotted line.
N.B.-A, in selling the portion to B, referred in the agreement to the conditions of the land society.
TITHE ACT, 1891. (For Replies to this Query, see pp. 429, 430.) Proceedings for recovery being commenced in the county court in the usual way and a day for hearing case appointed, but, no notice of opposition being given, the applicant does not attend the court, relying on the making of an order according to Rule 8. This, however, is not done, the Registrar saying that as no one appeared on behalf of the applicant the case was struck out in default of appearance.
Is this correct ?
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT, 1883—LAND OCCUPIED AS DAIRY
FARM-CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION ON QUITTING.
(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 430, 431.) A farm, comprising about 65 acres of grass land, with suitable dwelling. house and buildings, and situated about four miles from a large manafacturing town, was let in the usual way as a self contained stock or dairy farm.
The tenant having established a regular and lucrative retail milk business in the neighbouring town, far beyond the capacity of his own farm to meet, rented a considerable area of adjacent pasture land belongto another owner, and thus by erecting at his own cost additional buildings of a temporary and movable description upon, and mowing the whole or a large proportion of his original holding for hay, and purchasing feeding stuffs, he was able to keep from two to three times the number of cows that his farm of 65 acres would naturally maintain. Recently, however, the pasture land, rented from the other owner, has been taken away, and being it is presumed unable to obtain other land within a convenient distance and unwilling to curtail his profitable milk business, the tenant of the