« EelmineJätka »
Information is sought on the following points:
DRAINAGE OF BUILDING LAND.
(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 364, 365.)
A bought a plot of building land through which ran a ditch. A piped the ditch. A house has since been built on the adjoining land, a garden laid out, and the paths drained, and rain-water from roofs carried into the ditch. A's land in consequence is at times flooded, his pipes not being large enough to carry off this additional water. What is A's remedy, if any?
DILAPIDATIONS-SURVEYORS' CHARGES, &c.
(For a Reply to this Query, see p. 365.)
Can a lessor recover his out-of-pocket expenses for solicitors and surveyors' charges when the notice to repair has been satisfactorily completed by the lessee? Does the Conveyancing Act, 1892, permit of a successful appeal to law?
What does the "waiver by lessor in writing" (Section 2) comprise?
DAMAGE TO ADJOINING OWNER-FALL OF CHIMNEY.
(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 365, 366.)
A and B are adjoining owners of house property in a large provincial town. During the recent gales a large chimney of the house of A was blown over and fell through the roof and bedroom ceiling of the house belonging to B. Is A liable for the damage done to B's house?
VALUATION (LESSEE'S INTEREST).
(For Replies to this Query, see p. 366.)
A Corporation (A) is the freeholder of premises let on lease to B. The lease was granted for a term of 40 years from 1883, and a fine of £82 was paid by B to A at the granting of the lease as consideration (there is also a fixed annual quit-rent, which, however, does not affect the questions at issue).
By long-established custom, A's leases for 40 years are renewable in the 14th year, on payment of a fine; but, in some cases, these leases have been known to run for the whole term of 40 years. But, as there is no provision in the lease for such renewal, it is presumed that either party can refuse to renew,
The premises being required for a public improvement, A is willing to buy, and B to sell, his interest in the lease for a sum to be calculated from the above data; but there is a difference between the parties as to the fine.
A contends that, as the lease is renewable every 14 years, of the fine last paid, or say £6, should be deducted from the net annual value.
B contends that, as it is within his option whether he renew the lease or not, and he does not propose or hope to renew, the fine of £82 already paid to A gives him (subject to the quit-rent) 40 years' free use of the property; and that, therefore, his interest is the value of the net annual income for the remainder of the term, say 30 years, without any deduction, whether of th orth of the last fine. B contends that to deduct from the net annual income anything for the fine would be making him pay the fine twice over. He supports this contention by suggesting that, if he sold his interest of 30 years in the open market, the purchaser, in calculating his price, would not take into consideration the fine, unless in the 14th year he proposed to renew; but, as the premises are wanted for a public improvement now, it appears to B that there is little or no probability that in four years' time A would grant a renewal, or a fresh lease at the end of the term of 40 years.
B also claims that, in valuing his interest, he is entitled to add to the capital value of the income, the sum of £61 10s., representing ths of the fine, because, having paid £82 for 40 years' use of the premises, he only gets 10 years' use of them.
The two questions are, therefore :
1. Should any deduction from the net rent (and, if so, how much) be made in respect of the fine of £82?
2. Should B's claim for ths of the fine be allowed?
ARBITRATION ACT, 1889.
(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 367, 368.)
Are all valuations of farming stock, tillages, &c. (except where under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883), within the Arbitration Act; also, are valuations of stock-in-trade, or furniture and stock of inns and hotels included? in short, any reference to valuation (or arbitration) as between landlord and tenant, or tenant and tenant, by properly appointed valuers (or arbitrators) or their umpire.
The Act itself does not define "an arbitration."
Valuation.--What steps can be taken to forward a valuation where one of the valuers, after having entered on his duties, refuses to sign and send on the joint request to their duly appointed umpire to act, as they are unable to agree?
If the valuation is under the Arbitration Act, the umpire may, after three months, act, but, of course, he would not, unless requested to do so by a joint letter.
LANDLORD AND TENANT.
(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 368-370.)
Tenant A quitted, at Michaelmas, with usual overholding of pastures and yards in which he had a right to consume his fodder until next May, with his own cattle. But just after Michaelmas A sells his stock and implements by auction, and offers his fodder. This, however, is forbidden by the landlord, on the ground that he cannot sell away straw, and, also, that the incoming tenant, having taken the straw from the machine and thatched it, is in possession of it.
A then claimed a right to sell this fodder to a stranger, to be fed in the yards. To this the incoming tenant and landlord objected, but offered to buy the straw and overholding in the usual way. A, however, accepted the latter, but declined the former, and then claimed market price for the fodder.
Is A justified in either of his three contentions?
A and B are trustees of a public building.
In 1861 the building was re-erected, and they enclosed a piece of waste abutting on to a public highway, which has been used since then for persons desiring to attend meetings to congregate on.
The local authorities now claim to have the railings set back to their position previous to 1861.
1. Can the local authorities claim that right, as the Prescription Act, 1832, provides "that if any right of common shall have been "actually taken and enjoyed without interruption for the full period of "30 years, it shall give a primâ facie right"?
2. If the local authorities in 1861 sanctioned the enclosure, can the present authorities set their consent aside?
3. Are there any recent cases upon the subject?
(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 370, 371.)
A lessee for five years covenanted to keep premises "in good substantial and tenantable repair and clean condition," and to deliver up "in good state and condition." There are no periodical painting or papering covenants.
The premises were delivered up in very passable condition, considering the five years of occupancy, and, though nails had been driven in several of the walls, and, in a few places, into woodwork, no damage to the fabric arose through lack of painting or papering.
Lessor claims repainting in two oils and repapering throughout, basing the latter part of his claim on the fact that nails were driven into the walls.
(i.) Is he entitled to more than cleansing and touching up paint, or, at most, to more than one coat in oil?
(ii.) Is he entitled to repapering where the damage is only slight, such as nailholes; and paper (a) where it can be matched, (b) where it cannot?
(iii.) Assuming the lessor could substantiate his claim, would an underlessee for the last two years of the term (similar covenants) be liable to the original lessee for papering and painting, admitting that most of the nailholes had been made before his entry? If so, to what extent?
PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENT OF NURSERYMEN'S GREENHOUSES.
(For Replies to this Query, see p. 372.)
A florist takes a piece of bare land on lease and covers it with glasshouses.
1. In addition to assessing the net annual value of the glass erections, would it be fair to place an enhanced annual value on the land itself in consequence of the greenhouses being erected upon it?
Where a florist owns the greenhouses, which is invariably the case, upon what table should the annual value be calculated in view of the fact that a florist does not erect greenhouses with a view to their
yielding him an annual profit, but with the object of producing plants, cut flowers, and fruit, out of which he hopes to obtain his profit?
2. Would it not, under these circumstances, be fair, in arriving at the net rateable value, to assess the amount which the holding would, probably, realise in the open market, and upon that sum to calculate the gross annual value at three per cent. on the capital sum?
As a matter of experience, no florist, in the event of his wanting to let his glass on a repairing lease, could obtain in the way of rent more than three, and, in very exceptional cases, more than four, per cent. on his outlay.
3. Glasshouses being of a perishable nature, necessarily cost a large sum of money to maintain in repair. Is it usual, in assessing the rateable value, to tack on the cost of repairs?
4. Under which class should glasshouses rank for deductions? Would they be entitled to come under Clause 8 in the Schedule under the same category as mills and manufactories, which are subject to 33 per cent. deduction?
REPAIRING COVENANT-GOOD AND SUBSTANTIAL REPAIR.
(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 373, 374.)
The tenant of certain premises is under covenant to keep and deliver up the same in good and substantial repair.
The term having expired, a claim is made under the above covenant including whitewashing, papering, and similar items.
I have always understood that the words "good and substantial" repair included this class of minor or decorative repair, as the greater includes the less.
In this case an opinion has been given, "that the tenant need not "paper, paint, or whitewash, unless the omission to do so will cause "the fabric to be out of repair. The covenant is to keep in good and "substantial repair, not to cleanse, paint, &c."
This seems a complete reversal of the received view, and I should like to know how far it is correct, and the authority for it, if any.
RATING OF BRICKFIELDS.
(For Replies to this Query, see p. 375.)
The rate having been made on the surface rent and royalty, with a deduction from the surface rent, of land and buildings, of 10 per cent. from the gross for the rateable, and from the royalty of 10 per cent. for waste, spoilage, &c.
The occupier now claims a further deduction from the royalty on account of breeze, &c., used in the manufacture of the bricks. Should this deduction be allowed; and is it generally allowed in practice in assessing this particular kind of property?