(D.) No. Re Dawely v. Hartrup, Law Rep. 15 Q.B.D. 426. Let the other valuer make his valuation alone, or let the other valuer formally request the umpire to act, and then the umpire should intimate to the refusing valuer his (the umpire's) intention to act on a certain day, at a certain place, and, further, that if the refusing valuer does not attend, that he (the umpire) will proceed in his absence. S. B. L. DRUCE, Associate. Reply to Query CLXXXII. (Vol. VI., p. 353). LANDLORD AND TENANT. (A.) It is not stated in the case whether there is an agreement in writing between the landlord and A, the tenant; in the absence of an agree. ment, the custom of the district would prevail. The case is also silent as to what particular district or county the dispute has arisen in. In the absence of this information, my opinion (speaking generally) is as follows: (1) Assume A decides not to make down at his own cost the straw, (3) A, being under a legal obligation to consume his fodder, &c., on (B.) The absence of any agreement or particulars of valuation on entry makes it very difficult to give a decisive opinion. According to custom A has no claim upon the pasture land after Michaelmas, but he can sell by auction all the fodder and straw, with the use of the yards, for their consumption, until the first of May following. This is the usual custom on many estates in the Midlands, and the landlord or incoming tenant cannot prevent A exercising this right, but they can attend the sale and purchase if they wish to so. (c.) WM. WRIGHT, Fellow. This is a custom which still lingers in districts where the land was formerly chiefly under tillage, the outgoing tenant retaining the use of the yards till May Day, for the convenience of consuming the fodder. The landlord was within his rights in restraining the outgoer from selling the fodder to a stranger, the incomer. The incoming tenant, having been allowed to take possession, rendered himself liable for the consuming value of the straw; according to custom under all tenancies of this kind the manure made from the produce of the land is the property of the landlord. If the landlord or his incoming tenant refuse to take the fodder in the usual way, then the outgoing tenant could have taken in agisted cattle to consume the fodder without committing a breach of contract. Hence is not justified in any of his contentions. GILBERT MURRAY, Fellow. (D.) If A's agreement provides for the overholding yards and fodder for his own cattle only, he had no right to sell it "away," if by this is understood to another person; certainly he could not dispose of it to go off, which is a meaning the word may have. A, having sold his stock, should have accepted the proposal of incoming tenant to take the straw and overholding in "the usual way" -he could not be entitled to the market price of the fodder. What right had the incoming tenant to stack and thatch the fodder? (E.) J. R. EVE, Fellow. A, the tenant, having a right to consume his own fodder, would be perfectly justified in making arrangements for its consumption on the holding by the stock of a third party, which, for this purpose, would be considered his own. The landlord would have no power to forbid this on the ground that "A cannot sell away straw," as consuming fodder is in no sense selling straw. A has a perfect right to "sell the fodder to a stranger, to be fed in the yards," and the landlord would have no grounds for objecting to this, nor can he claim any right to the offer of it. The fact of A having agreed with the landlord for the overholding value of the pasture, would not alter his position with regard to the straw, the fodder of which belongs to him, A, and not the market price. There is no question of the incoming tenant involved, as there is no privity between A and himself. JOHN LOOKER, Fellow. (F.) It is almost impossible and hopeless to endeavour to give a reliable answer to this and similar questions without perusing the agreement. One point seems to be quite clear, viz., that the outgoing tenant has no right to a market price for the fodder, or to remove it. As to the consumption, it is a very unusual thing that a tenant should be bound to consume the fodder with his own cattle, and, unless there are specific words in the agreement which place this beyond doubt, I conclude that he would be entitled to consume the fodder either with his own or other stock taken in to keep. The fact that the incoming tenant was allowed to take possession of the straw from the machine and thatch it, would seem to indicate that negotiations between the outgoing and incoming tenants thereon had practically been settled, and I should contend that, from the fact that the outgoing tenant had thus allowed the incoming tenant to deal with the straw, he had practically given him possession subject to the final settlement of terms, and that, having gone so far, the outgoing tenant could not withdraw; but, failing the final agreement of terms between the parties, the price would have to be settled by arbitration. (G.) E. A. RAWLENCE, Fellow. 1st. A claims to sell fodder to be removed. This, in the absence of a special agreement to that effect, he could not claim rightfully. 2nd. A claims to sell this fodder to a stranger, to be fed in the yards. 3rd. Whether he is or is not entitled to do this must depend upon whether the agreement specifies that he should feed it with his own cattle; in the absence of such a limitation, custom of the country would, probably, allow his claim. Landlord and incoming tenant having offered to take the fodder and overholding at a valuation in the usual way, A accepts the offer as to the overholding, but claims selling price for the fodder. This he could not maintain. H. HERBERT SMITH, Fellow. Reply to Query CLXXXIV. (Vol. VI., p. 354). DILAPIDATIONS. (A.) It is understood that the question raised upon this is under the covenants of a lease under seal, and that the premises are not only to be kept in the condition required, but to be so delivered up. If the premises were, under such conditions, delivered up in what is termed in the query "passable condition considering the period of occupancy," I think, subject to the place being made good where nails had been driven into the walls and woodwork, that the covenant would be fulfilled. I do not think the lessor can require either painting or repapering unless the paint and paper in question is so damaged that it cannot be repaired. The answer, therefore, to the enquiry would be:- (i.) No. (ii.) No. (iii.) An underlessee would only be liable to the person who had granted the lease to him, and not to the original lessee, unless he had entered into a covenant to bear his lessor harmless. J. WHITTAKER ELLIS, Bart., Fellow. (B.) Nothing is said in the question as to the class of property to which the premises belong. This, in view of the covenant containing the words "tenantable repair,” and regard being had to Proudfoot v. Hart,* may be a most material element. It is also a difficult question to answer, without having seen the premises; but, so far as I can gather the facts, I should say (i.) Clean and touch up. Where this makes a respectable finish it is all that is claimable. (ii.) It all depends upon how far the papering is disfigured. If so much so that a reasonably-minded tenant seeking such property would not be satisfied with its condition, then, probably, repapering is claimable. The same principle governs the question of matching and patching paper. If it can be matched so as not to be unsightly, then it is admissible. (iii.) No reliable opinion can be expressed without seeing the underlease and knowing more of the circumstances; but the Courts would, I think, be hard to persuade that with so short a tenancy the covenant could be pressed so as to require the underlessee to give up the premises in better state than when they were taken, and this is what would be the result in this case. C. HERBERT BEDELLS, Fellow. (c.) In answer to this question, I am of the opinion— 1. That the lessor's claim is not necessarily confined to cleaning and touching up paint work, or to one coat of oil. 2. That the lessor would be obliged to repaper, either as a whole or in part, rooms where the paper was damaged; the amount of damage necessitating repapering depends to some extent upon the character of the premises. 3. That the underlessee is not liable to the original lessor at all. P. E. PILDITCH, Fellow. (D.) The words, in "very passable" condition, are too vague to enable me to answer the questions satisfactorily and fully. I think, however, that the covenants justify a landlord in claiming that wherever the • See "Professional Notes," vol. iv., pp. 178, 246, 321. walls and woodwork have been damaged by nails they should be repapered and painted in the usual way. Patching papers which are no doubt faded will not satisfy the covenant as to " good state and condition," nor will one coat of paint. As regards iii. Certainly not. EDWD. TEWSON, Fellow. Reply to Query CLXXXV. (Vol. VI., p. 354). PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENT OF NURSERYMAN'S GREENHOUSES. (A.) 1. The land must be assessed at what it is worth for the purpose to which it is put, but no further rule can, I think, be given applicable to all cases. 2. As to the percentage on value which should be applied, this is generally answered by the question, How many years' purchase would be given for a rent chiefly derived from glasshouses? and I think the querist will find that, instead of what apparently is his view, viz., that the greater the risk the less the gross value should be, the reverse will be the answer. 3. The answer to this is, simply, that the rateable value should not be less because the hereditament is necessarily fragile, but that the gross should be more in consequence. 4. If in the Metropolis, Class 6; although, probably, if the land were small in area the deduction would be inadequate. WM. EVE, Fellow. (B.) As regards this question, I assume that the rent paid for the bare land on lease represents its present value, therefore the rent so paid would be the rateable value; some small sum for repairs, say 5 per cent., would have to be added to arrive at the gross value. Then the glasshouses being erected on the land, the value of the land is thereby increased, and I should take the present structural value of these at 6 per cent. for the gross and per cent. for the rateable-the deduction of one-third being made because of the heavy expenses in repairing and maintaining this part of the nursery. As to No. 2, the question is, what would the property let for, from year to year, on the statutory terms? The cost of the land, especially if it was bought years ago, would, probably, be no guide whatever in determining the letting value. 3. It would be right, in arriving at the rateable value, whether of the glasshouses or of any other portion of the holding, to add the cost of repairs, renewal, and insurance, to arrive at the gross value. 4. A nursery generally consists of a dwelling-house, stabling (sometimes also labourers' cottages), and glasshouses. The repairs, renewals, and insurance would not be in the same ratio for all these, and in the valuation they, together with the land, would have to be treated sepa |