undertaking to rebuild the house, and also in consideration of 18. paid to the lessor: the court held that this was not a purchase within stat. 9 G. 1, c. 7; to come within that statute the consideration must consist wholly of money, whereas in this case it might be fairly inferred, from the relationship of the parties, that natural love and affection formed an ingredient in the consideration, the whole being evidently a family arrangement, and the lord merely the medium by which it was effected: they held, therefore, that Tucker gained a settlement by residing upon it (q). A mortgage, however, has been holden to be a purchase within the meaning of the Act (r). What sums paid or to be paid by the vendee, shall be deemed part of the consideration money, has been made the subject of dispute in many cases. Where a man purchased a copyhold tenement, and the purchase money, fine and fees, altogether amounted to 307., the court held this to be sufficient within the meaning of the Act (s). Where a man purchased a copyhold cottage for 221. and he was to pay all the expenses; he accordingly paid 37. 10s. as a fine to the lord, 17. 138. to the steward for his admission copy, 17. 1s. for a power of attorney to take his surrender, 31. 6s. to his own attorney, and other fees, &c., amounting altogether to 331. 15s. 6d.: the court held that he gained no settlement; the fine to the lord might be deemed a part of the purchase-money, being paid to him for a certain interest he had in the land; but it was doubtful whether the sum paid to the steward could be deemed part; but at all events the sum paid to his own attorney and the other fees, could not; and what he paid to the vendor, lord and steward, did not together amount to 30%. (t). So, where a man purchased a house, land, and garden for 197., and laid out 151. more in repairs and new buildings: the court held that he gained no settlement; the statute estimated the value of the estate by the sum actually paid for it, and not by what had been laid out on it afterwards (u). But where a man purchased a house for 391., paid 97. of it out of his own funds, and a friend of his by his order paid the remaining 301.; and in about a month he mortgaged it to his friend, to secure the 301. the court held that he gained a settlement; the 397. was actually paid to the vendor, and the sessions had no right to inquire whether the purchaser borrowed any part of it (v). So, (q) R. v. Lydlinch, 4 B. & Ad. 150. S. P. R. v. Tarrant Launceston, Cald. 209. R. v. Martley, 5 East, 40. (r) R. v. Stockland, 2 Str. 1162; Burr. S. C. 169. (8) St. Paul's Walden v. Kempton, Fol. 238. (t) R. v. Cottingham, 7 B. & C. 603. (u) R. v. Dunchurch, Burr. S. C. 553; 1 W. Bl. 596, 598. And see Wendron v. Stithians, 24 Law J. 1, m. (v) R. v. Tedford, 2 Str. 1014; Burr. S. C. 57. Š. P. R. v. Acton, Beauchamp, Burr. S. C. 326. where a copyhold messuage was mortgaged for 501., and a man gave 107. for the mortgagor's interest; in about three years and a half afterwards, he borrowed 501., and paid off the mortgage, but immediately mortgaged it to the lender to secure the 501., in a few years after he sold the property for 801., and paid off the mortgage; and from the time of the purchase to the resale, he resided on the premises: the court held that he thereby gained a settlement; he paid part of the purchasemoney out of his own funds and borrowed the remainder, and the case therefore could not be distinguished from that of R. t. Tedford, above mentioned; if indeed the interest of the first mortgagee, had never vested in the purchaser, but passed immediately from the first to the second mortgagee, the matter might admit of a different consideration (e). On the other hand, where a man purchased a copyhold tenement for 391. 178. 6d. including a mortgage upon it for 321., and upon paying the balance 77. 178. 6d., he was admitted to it subject to the mortgage; but in about four years, he gave up the tenement to the mortgagee, having paid only two years' interest, and none of the principal: the court held that he gained no settlement; it was in substance a purchase of the mortgagor's interest only, for 77. 178. 6d., and came within the meaning of stat. 9 G. 1, c. 7, s. 5 (ƒ). So, where a man agreed for the purchase of a house for 521., if the vendor would allow 401. of it to remain on mortgage; the conveyance stated the consideration to be 521., but only 121. were actually paid, and the party then mortgaged the house to the vendor for 401.: the court held this to be a purchase for 121. only, and within this statute; consequently, that the party gained no settlement by it (g). Where the consideration stated in the conveyance was 281. only, but it was proved by parol evidence that it was in fact 301. the court held the parol evidence admissible, and that the party gained a settlement (h). Where a conveyance of a piece of land was really made by a brother, to the husband of his sister upon her marriage, but it expressed upon the face of it that it was made for a consideration of two guineas, which was about its value; it was argued that this was a purchase under 301. within the statute, and that the parties were estopped by the deed from denying it: but the court held that although the parties might be estopped, yet the parish officers, who were no parties, were not estopped by the deed from showing the real consideration (i). 12. (e) R. v. Chailey, 6 T. R. 755. (g) R. v. Olney, 1 M. & S. 387. (h) R. v. Scammonden, 8 T. R. 474. (i) R. v. Chcadale, 3 B. & Ad 833. What not within the Act.] It may be laid down as a safe general principle, that no estate or interest is within the meaning of this statute, from which a settlement could not be derived, if the Act had not been made. And therefore it has been holden that the purchase of a remainder, after an estate for life, was not within the Act, and conferred no settlement (k). So, where a man purchased an estate for 3101. and paid 1601. of it, and was thereupon let into possession, but no conveyance was executed to him: the court held that he gained no settlement; to gain a settlement by a purchase under this Act, the party must have, not merely an equitable right, as in this case, but an equitable estate; and here the estate was not the pauper's either at law or in equity, until he paid or tendered the residue of the purchase-money (1). So where, for a consideration of 401., a cottage was demised to the pauper's father, for the term of sixty years; and he afterwards, being indebted to the pauper in the sum of 247., by a verbal agreement for this and for natural love and affection, put the pauper in possession of, and in receipt of the rent for, this cottage, who received the rent for three years (namely, 31. for the first year, and 51. for the two next years), when the father and son joined in a conveyance of it to a purchaser for 251., which was paid to the pauper: the court held that the pauper did not thereby gain a settlement; there was no conveyance from the father to the son, and as he could not ground an equitable interest on natural love and affection, such interest (if he had any) must have rested upon the pecuniary consideration, and that was under 301. (m). So, where one Goodwyn applied for and obtained from the lord of a manor, a licence in writing to build a cottage on the waste; he built the cottage accordingly, and in two years sold it to one Bailey, and Bailey sold it to the pauper for 301., but no conveyance was executed : the court held that the pauper gained no settlement by this purchase; the licence conferred no right or estate whatever ; and as Goodwyn had no right or estate, he could give none to Bailey, nor Bailey to the pauper (n). But where a building club, consisting of fourteen members, in 1822, purchased land whereon to build fourteen houses, and had it conveyed to a mortgagee, who advanced the money for the purchase (1737.) and other monies to the amount in all of 5007.; this was to be repaid, and the remaining expenses of the (k) R. v. Eatington, 4 T. R. 177. See ante, p. 631. (1) R. v. Geddington, 2 B. & C. 129. S. P. R. v. Long Bennington, 6 M. & S. 403. R. v. Llantillio Grosseny, 5 B. & C. 461. R. v. buildings defrayed, by monthly or yearly payments from the members, and by rents received for the houses after they were built, and when the whole should be paid, each member was to have his house conveyed to him by the mortgagee: one Ellison, one of the members, was put in possession of one of the houses, and paid rent for it to the club, and regularly paid his monthly and yearly contributions, when, in 1839, having up to that time paid 811., the mortgagee conveyed to him his house in fee: it was contended that he gained no settlement by this, because the club, by their purchase, acquired an equitable estate in the land, and his share of the purchasemoney being under 301. he could not add to it the sum expended in building the house upon it, to bring it up to that amount: but the court held that he had no estate legal or equitable, until the house was actually conveyed to him by the mortgagee, and at that time he had paid much more than 30%. for it, and he thereby gained a settlement (o). In one case, it was argued that this Act, by enacting that persons should not acquire a settlement by purchase of an estate under 301., "for any longer or further time than such person or persons shall inhabit in such estate," necessarily implied that he is to be deemed settled in the parish whilst he continues to inhabit on such estate; and that any of his children who happen to be then emancipated, and of course are entitled to their father's settlement at that time, must be deemed to be settled in the parish in which such estate is situate but the court held that such a purchase and residence did not confer any settlement at all upon the purchaser, but merely rendered him irremovable (p). The cases we have now been considering are those in which the purchaser himself claims his settlement by reason of his residence upon the estate purchased by him, or in the parish in which it is situate. But if for natural love and affection he transfer it to another (q), or if it come to the heir at law of the purchaser by descent, or to the executor or administrator of the purchaser (r), the party to whom it thus comes may gain a settlement by residence upon it, or in the same parish in which it is situate, for forty days So, where a man purchased a cottage and garden at Upton, in fee, for 5l., and lived in it with his wife and children twenty years, and then died; after his death, the widow and children remained in the house ten weeks, and were then removed by order to another parish: the court held that the widow gained a settlement in Upton, by her residence in the cottage after her husband's death; she (0) R. v. Carlton, 19 Law J.100, m. (p) R. v. Salford, Burr. S. C. 516; 1 W. Bl. 433. (q) R. v. Marwood, Burr. S. C. 386. See ante, p. 639. (r) See ante, pp. 632, 637. was entitled to her quarantine, and was irremovable for the forty days (s). Fraud, its effect.] If any fraud be practised by the parish officers, to enable a person settled in their parish to obtain a settlement by purchase in another parish, such fraud will vitiate the settlement. But the sessions must find the fraud, otherwise the court of Queen's Bench will not notice it. Therefore where the pauper, then settled in Kempton, purchased a copyhold tenement in St. Paul's Walden, which with the fine and fees amounted to 307., and the overseers of Kempton lent him 408. to pay the fine and fees; it was argued that this was fraudulent upon the part of the overseers, and avoided the settlement: but the court held that they could not notice the fraud, as the sessions had not found it (t). (8) R. v. Long Wittenham, 2 Bott, 38, 530. (t) St. Paul's Walden v. Kempton, Fol. 238. |