Page images

take, on the death of every tenant dying seised of either of the moieties, a heriot for each moiety; this must be taken to be one entire custom, and not two distinct customs, the one applicable to the tenement before, and the other after the division of it; and being laid to be an immemorial custom, it is disproved by evidence that the division was made within memory. Kingsmill v. Bull, 9 East, 185.

A heriot may be due by custom upon the death of a free tenant holding an estate in fee-simple. Damerell v. Protheroe, 10 Q. B. 20; 16 L. J., Q. B. 170; 11 Jur. 331.

Where there are four joint tenants of a copyhold estate, and all join in aliening, one heriot only is due, if the custom of the manor shews only that a heriot is due from every tenant on alienation. Padwick v. Tyndale, I El. & El. 184; 28 L. J., Q. B.*90; 5 Jur., N. S. 676; 33 L. T., O. S. 125; 7 W. R. 53.

The lord's claim for compensation, upon a valuation or an enfranchisement under 15 & 16 Vict. c. 51, s. 16, is to be estimated accordingly. Ib.

Property in, Vesting.]-Where a customary heriot of the best beast is due, on the death of a tenant, to the lord of a manor, no property in any specified beast vests in the lord before selection by him of the beast. Abington v. Lipscombe, 1 G. & D. 230; 1 Q. B. 776; 6 Jur. 257.

A selection of seven beasts as heriots, when the lord is entitled to five only, will not be sufficient to vest in the lord the property in any

five of them. Ib.

Seizing, in different Rights Trespass ab initio.]-Action for breaking and entering a close, and seizing and taking two horses. The defendant pleaded as to breaking and entering the close, and seizing and taking one of the horses, a justification of the seizure of that horse as a heriot due in respect of a customary tenement, whereof the plaintiff's testator died seised. The defendant also pleaded as to the breaking and entering the close, and seizing and taking the other horse, a justification of the seizure of that horse as a heriot due in respect of another customary tenement whereof the plaintiff's testator died seised. Separate replications to each of the pleas, that the defendant, at the same time. place and occasion, when he took the horse in the introductory part of that plea mentioned, also seized and took the other horse under colour and pretence of the heriot custom, and under an assertion and a claim of right to seize and take the same other horse as and for the heriot custom, are good, inasmuch as the seizure of the other horse rendered the defendant a trespasser ab initio as to the entry, as well to the seizure. Price v. Woodhouse, 1 Ex. 559.

Land on Lease.]-By the 7th custom of a manor the lord is to have for a heriot, on every descent, the best quick cattle for every yard and half yard of land. By the 17th, if any tenant shall let his land, and at his decease the lord not auswered the best beast for his heriot, which did commonly manure the premises, the person to whom the land ought to come shall pay to the lord, within six weeks after the death of the tenant, 31. for every yard of land, and 40s. for every half-yard, instead of a heriot :-Held, that


where the tenant died, after having let his land, the lord could not seize the best beast for his heriot, and was entitled only to the pecuniary payment in licu thereof. Croome v. Guise, 4 Bing. N. C. 148; 5 Scott, 453; 3 Hodges, 277.

Custom as to Compensation.]-It seems that a custom for the homage to assess a compensation in lieu of a heriot to be paid by an incoming copyholder on surrender or alienation, is not good. Parkin v. Ratcliffe, 1 B. & P. 282.

Evidence that the homage has been accustomed to assess a certain sum of money as a heriot upon alienation, and that such assessment has always been made with reference to the best chattel of the tenant, will not support an avowry for a heriot in kind upon alienation. Ib.

Commuting.]-Where a money payment is due in lieu of heriots and relief by the custom, there must be also a custom of distress, and the must be alleged positively, and not merely by inference. Basingstoke (Mayor, &c.) v. Bolton, 1 Drew. 270; 22 L. J., Ch. 305; 17 Jur. 57.


Commissioners of inclosure have no powers, in exchanging freehold land subject to heriots and reliefs, to make the allotted lands so subject. S. C., 3 Drew, 50.

Pleading.]-Where a lord of a manor justified under a custom to have the best beast on the tenant's death, and the custom proved was, that the lord should have the best beast or goods :-Held, a variance. Adderley v. Hart, 1 B. & P. 394, n.

Quit-rents.]-Payment of an unvaried rent for a long series of years to the lord of a manor, is evidence of a title to the rent only, and not to the land in respect of which the rent is paid. Doe d. Whittick v. Johnson, Gow, 173.

The presumption is, that the rent is a quitrent. Ib.

Mere length of time short of the period fixed by the statute of limitations, and unaccompanied with any circumstances, is not of itself a sufficient ground to presume a release, or an extinguishment of a quit-rent. Eldridge v. Knott, Cowp. 214.

Election.] Where customary tenants hold under a corn-rent, or an annual sum of money in lieu thereof, in the absence of a custom to the contrary, the election is with the tenant to pay either in money or in corn. Blewett v. Jenkins, 12 C. B., N. S. 16.

Altering.]-A lord of a manor, on a grant of a copyhold tenement, can neither add to nor diminish the ancient rent. Doe d. Rayer v. Strickland, 2 G. & D. 278; 2 Q. B. 792; 11 L. J., Q. B. 305.

Where a lord of a manor, having a life interest only in the manor, granted at a new rent of 28. a portion of an entire tenement, the ancient rent for which entire tenement had been 10s. and two hens-Held, an invalid grant against his successor. Ib.

d. Fines.

Reasonableness.]-Where a fine arbitrary is imposed, it is due to the lord of common right,

and the tenant must shew that it is unreasonable. Doe d. Twining v. Muscott, 12 M. & W. 832; 14 L. J., Ex. 185.

A lord of a manor cannot recover a fine not certain, unless it is reasonable, and assessed and demanded. Hayward v. Raw, 6 H. & N. 308; 30 L. J., Ex. 178; 4 L. T. 519.

An entry by a steward of a manor in his book of the admission of a surrenderee of copyhold premises is a mere memorandum, and not such an admittance as will entitle the lord to claim a fine. Ib.

The rent reserved in a lease of copyhold premises, is not conclusive as to the amount of a fine payable to the lord, for the tenant may shew that the actual value of the premises demised is less than the rent reserved; and the fine must be estimated according to the improved value. Verulam (Earl) v. Howard, 5 M. & P. 148; 7 Bing. 327.

A tenant for life and several remaindermen in their order were all admitted at the same court, and the fines assessed upon them were calculated on the same principle as those imposed upon joint tenants-Held, that this was not an unreasonable mode of calculation. Richardson v. Kensit, 5 M. & G. 485; 6 Scott, N. R. 419; 12 L. J., C. P. 154; 7 Jur. 856.

Assessment of.]-In assessing a fine proportionably upon the clear annual value of copyhold lands, the mode to calculate what that clear annual value is, is to consider it so much as it would yield to the copyholder if he occupied it himself, i. e., so much as it would yield if he were to let it and repair it himself; and therefore the annual charge for repairs should enter into the calculation of the clear annual value of the lands. Ib. A lord, who is entitled by the custom of the manor to a reasonable fine upon admission to a copyhold tenement, may demand and recover such fine by the description of the improved annual value for a certain number of years of the tenement to which the admittance relates, and without stating in money the precise amount of the fine. Fraser v. Mason, 11 Q. B. D. 574; 52 L. J., Q. B. 643-C. A. Affirming 10 Q. B. D. 398; 52 L. J., Q. B. 423; 48 L. T. 269; 31 W. R. 550; 47 J. P. 358.

If an assessment of a copyhold fine is entered in the court rolls, as of 1007., but that out of especial favour the lord remitted 407., and thereby reduced it to 607., and the lord sued for the fine, and the jury finding the annual value of the premises 301. give a verdict for 607., the lord cannot retain the verdict for the sum actually due, but must make a new assessment; the old assessment, notwithstanding the remitter, being in law an assessment as of 1001. Northwick (Lord) v. Stanway, 3 B. & P. 346; 6 East, 56.

The lord may recover from a copyholder the fine assessed by him on admittance, not exceeding two years' value of the tenement, although there is no entry of the assessment of such fine on the court rolls, but only a demand of such a sum for a fine after the value of the tenement had been found by the homage. Ib.

Two Years' Rule.]-The lord of a manor can never be entitled to more than two years' intrinsic value of the estate, as a fine upon admission; therefore, a custom to take 10 per cent. on the purchase-money, be it of ever so long continuance, cannot bind. Leake v. Pigto (Lord), 1 Selw. N. P. 87.

And an action will lie to recover the overplus above two years' value, if it was paid upon compulsion. Ib.

Several Admitted.]-The fine, payable according to the custom of a manor on the admittance of a single tenant in fee, was two years' improved value; and where several persons had been admitted, they had paid fines assessed two years for the first life, one half of that for the second, and one half of that last sum for the third-Held, that that was the proper mode of calculating the fine in the present case. Shepherd v. Woodford, 5 M. & W. 608.

A copyhold estate was vested in fourteen trustees, and by a decree of the court of chancery, made in a suit to which the lord of the manor and the trustees for the time being were parties, it was ordered, that when at any time the number of the trustees should be reduced to five, the lord should, with the approbation of the master in chancery, nominate nine others to be added to the five, to whose use a new surrender should be made, and that the lord should admit them on paying a reasonable fine. The annual value of the estate was 1,0007.:-Held, that the sum of 5,6577. 19s. was an unreasonable fine, on the admission of fourteen trustees; and that the proper mode of assessing the fine was to take, for the first life, two years' improved value; for the second life. one half of the sum taken from the first; and for the third life, one half of the sum taken for the second; and so on. Wilson v. Hoare, 2 B & Ad. 350.

A lord claimed double the admitted yearly value on the first life, half of that sum on the second life, half of the last amount on the third, and so on in a descending series:-Held, that a fine calculated on this principle was a reasonable fine. Wilson v. Hoare, 2 P. & D. 659; 10 A. & E. 236.

Held, in the Exchequer Chamber, that the principle of assessment laid down in Wilson v. Hoare, 2 B. & Ad. 350, was inapplicable, and that a deduction should be made on account of the right to take a new fine on the failure of nine lives out of fourteen, instead of absolutely. Hoare v. Wilson, 10 A. & E. 245, n.

On Licence to Demise.]-On the 8th February, 1810, a licence was granted by a lord of a manor to a copyholder, to demise part of his copyhold premises to A. for seventy-one years, saving all fines to the lord. On the 4th April, 1810, a second licence was granted to him to demise the remainder of his copyhold, excepting the part previously demised to A. for seventy-one years, with this condition, that, in consequence of his engagement to improve the premises, it was agreed, that during the seventy-one years the fine on all future admissions should be at and after the rate of 371. per year for the whole, and so in proportion for any less quantity of land :--Held, that the words "the whole" meant the whole of the residue which had not been demised to A., and that the executors of the copyholder were bound to pay on their admission to the whole of the premises not only the two years' improved value at 371. per annum of the residue of the premises occupied by the copyholder, but also two years' improved value of the premises demised to A. Curtis v. Scales, 14 M. & W. 444; 14 L. J., Ex. 318.

Unreasonable Custom.]-A custom that the

lord of a manor, in assessing a fine upon admittance of one not being a copyhold tenant on the court rolls (except a customary heir claiming admittance as such), is not restricted in amount to any number of years' value of the tenement to which such admittance is made, is unreasonable and bad. Douglas v. Dysart (Earl), 10 C. B., N. S. 688; 6 L. T. 327.

Instruments Stamps.]-Copyhold land was devised to A. for life, remainder to five persons as tenants in common; A. was admitted. After his death the five, having contracted to sell to B., severally surrendered to the use of B. in fee, which surrender was accepted by the lord :— Held, that B., on claiming admittance, must pay five fees, and that the admittance would require five stamps. Reg. v. Eton College, 8 Q. B. 526; S. C., nom. Reg. v. Everdon (Manor), 16 L. J., Q. B. 18.

If a copyhold tenant conveys his tenement in several parcels to different parties, and some only of those parcels afterwards devolve upon a single person, such person (in the absence of special custom) is not entitled to be admitted by a single admittance; but the lord may insist upon several admittances (whether in a single instrument or not) in respect of each parcel which has so devolved, and there must be several stamps in respect of each. Traherne v. Gardner, 5 El. & Bl. 213; 25 L. J., Q. B. 201; 2 Jur., N. S.


Co-parceners.]-Semble, that co-parceners are entitled to be admitted to copyhold tenements as one heir, and upon the payment of one set of fees. Rex v. Bonsall, 4 D. & R. 825; 3 B. & C. 173.


Trustees.-A. devised real estates to three trustees, upon certain trusts, and directed, that, in the event of any of the trustees dying or ceasing to act, others should be appointed, so that there might always be three trustees for the purpose of carrying the trusts of the will into execution; and he also directed a transfer of the estates upon every such new appointment. In execution of the trusts contained in the will, several copyhold estates were purchased, and the trustees admitted, and the estates were transferred to new trustees from time to time. length, one of the trustees having died, and another having declined to act, the third surrendered the copyhold estates to himself and two new trustees, and the three were duly admitted by the lord-Held, that although one of the surrenderees was also a surrenderor, this was an admittance of all three to a new estate; and that the fine, being payable in respect of the admission to that new estate, was correctly assessed as upon an admission de novo of three tenants as joint tenants of the estate. Shepherd v. Woodford, 5 M. & W. 608.

A devise of a copyhold estate to four as joint tenants. Held, that any of them was entitled to be admitted as tenant, without the payment of three fines as a condition. Reg. v. Wanstead (Manor), 23 L. J., Q. B. 67; 18 Jur. 310. And see Wilson v. Hoare, supra.

Remaindermen.-A lord of a manor who has been paid a full fine on the admission of a tenant for life has no right, on the death of the latter,

to another full fine from the remainderman for his admission, unless a special custom of the manor justifies the claim. Reg. v. Woodham Walter Manor (Lord), 10 B. & S. 439.

The custom must be proved by affirmative evidence; and entries on the court rolls of the admission of a tenant for life and payment of a fine by him, and after his death the admission of the tenant in remainder and payment of a fine by him without mentioning any amount, are not of themselves evidence of the custom, since such entries are consistent with an apportionment of the full fine between the tenant for life and the remainderman. Ib.

The same principle applies where the entries mentioned the amount of the fines. Ib.

The lord of a manor having taken a full fine on the admittance of a tenant for life, is not entitled to another full fine upon the admittance

of the remainderman as tenant in fee unless the

imposition of such latter fine is authorized by a special custom of the manor. Ely (Dean) v. Caldecott, 1 M. & Scott, 633; 8 Bing. 439. A devisee in fee of a copyhold tenement on his admittance paid the lord the full fine due by the custom of the manor; he afterwards made a surrender of the premises to the use of himself and his assigns for life, with divers remainders over; and on being admitted tenant for life of the surrendered premises he paid a fine of 1s. to the lord:-Held, that in the absence of a custom within the manor to sanction it, no fine was payable on the admission of the remainderman, the admission of the tenant for life being the admission of the remainderman. Eburn, 3 Scott, 634; 3 Bing. N. C. 250; 2 Phypers v. Hodges, 230.

Where a person becomes entitled under a will to copyholds, whether by remainder, originally vested, or by contingent remainder or executory devise which has become vested by the happening of the contingency, he comes in directly under the will, and therefore as between himself and the lord of the manor, he is entitled to the benefit of the admittance of the first devisee under the will. Randfield v. Randfield, 1 Drew. & Sim. 310.

The admission of a tenant for life to a copyhold is the admission of all in remainder, and the lord may assess the whole fine. Kensington (Lord) v. Mansell, 13 Ves. 246.

Several Tenements.]-One fine cannot be assessed on the admission to several copyhold tenements. Grant v. Astle, 2 Dougl. 722.

Surrender of Intermediate Estate.]-A surrenderee of a remainder in a copyhold estate having died in the lifetime of the tenant for life:

Held, that on the decease of the tenant for life the heir of such surrenderee was entitled to be admitted on payment of a single fine. Garland v Alston, 3 H. & N. 390; 27 L. J., Ex. 438; 4 Jur., N. S. 539.

Custom as to.]-Where a copyholder in fee, who had paid a fine on his original admittance, surrendered to the use of himself for life, remainder to his wife for life, remainder over; on which surrender and re-admittance no new fine was paid, and by the custom a remainderman coming into possession on the death of tenant for life, must be admitted and pay a fine :-Held, that such a custom is good. Doe d.

Whitbread v. Jenney, 5 East, 522; 2 Smith, estate, is void, and the lord is entitled to a fine 116.

Surrender by Heir.]-Where a devisee for life on admittance has paid a full fine as on admittance in fee, and the heir of the devisor has surrendered his reversion, the surrenderee cannot compel the lord to accept and enrol the surrender without payment of the fine payable in respect of the descent upon the heir. Reg. v. Dullingham, 1 P. & D. 172; 8 A. & E. 858; 1 W., W. & H. 865.

Devise by one not Admitted.]—Where a person entitled to copyhold tenements in fee, who had never been admitted and never sought admission to them, died; having devised all his property to his eldest son and heir:-Held, first, that on the admission of the son the lord was entitled to two fines, one for the tenant's own admission, and the other as if his father had been admitted. Landesborough (Lord) v. Foster, 3 B. & S. 805; 32 L. J., Q. B. 225; 9 Jur., N. S. 1173; 8 L. T. 240; 11 W. R. 593.

Held, secondly, that the lord was not estopped from claiming this on the ground that the property was held in trust, and that he had admitted some of the cestuis que trustent on payment of the accustomed fines. Ib.

Executory Devisees.]-Where by the custom of a manor it was necessary for a copyhold tenant in remainder to be admitted and pay a fine on becoming entitled in possession, notwithstanding the admission of the tenant for life :— Held, that the same rule ought to be applied to an executory devisee who became entitled on the defeasance of an estate in fee, although no custom applicable to that case was established. Randfield v. Randfield, 3 De G., F. & J. 766; 31 L. J., Ch. 113; 8 Jur., N. S. 161; 5 L. T. 698

-L. J.


Disclaimer of Trustees. ]-Devise of a copyhold to three persons in fee who were also appointed executors of the will. The three proved the Two of them, by deed, released their interest and estate in the copyhold to the third, to the intent that such third person might be admitted alone. The lord of the manor claimed a treble fine, and had not admitted :-Held, that he was entitled to a single fine only, the deed operating as a disclaimer, and the fact that all three had proved the will not preventing any of them from disclaiming the devise under it. Wellesley (Viscount) v. Withers, 4 El. & Bl. 750; 24 L. J., Q. B. 134; 1 Jur., N. S. 706.

The Court of Chancery has power under the Trustee Acts of 1850 (13 & 14 Vict. c. 60), s. 32, and 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 55), s. 9, to make an order appointing a trustee in substitution of a deceased trustee of a copyhold tenement, and ordering the copyhold tenements to be vested in him; and such trustee is entitled to be admitted on payment of one fine only, as claiming under such order and not through the customary heir

to whom the estate had descended. Bristow v. Booth, 5 L. R., C. P. 80; 39 L. J., C. P. 47; 21 L. T. 427; 18 W. R. 138.

A disclaimer by two out of three joint tenants, surrenderees of copyhold lands belonging to a manor, executed before the admittance of the remaining tenant, but after the exercise by all the three of various acts of ownership over the

as upon the admittance of all. Bence v. Gilpin, 3 L. R., Ex. 76; 37 L. J., Ex. 36; 17 L. T. 655 ; 16 W. R. 705.

Death pending Proceedings to Enfranchise.]— A copyhold tenant died after proceedings instituted by him for a compulsory enfranchisement under the Copyhold Act, 1858 (21 & 22 Vict. c. 94), and before the confirmation of the award by the commissioners :-Held, that the lord was entitled to have a new tenant on the roll and to a fine on his admittance. Myers v. Hodgson, 1 C. P. D. 609; 45 L. J., C. P. 603; 34 L. T. 881; 24 W. R. 827.

Held, also, that the proceedings did not abate by the death of the first tenant. Ib.

Covenant to Assure.]—A covenant to surrender a copyhold to a purchaser, and to make and do all acts, deeds, &c., for the perfect surrendering and assuring the premises at the costs and charges of the seller, is not broken by nonpayment of the fine to the lord on the admission of the purchaser; for the title is perfected by the admittance of the tenant, and the fine is not due till after the admittance. Graham v. Sime, 1 East, 632.

To Assign.]-A covenant made by a copyholder with a stranger to assign and surrender his copyhold to him, which covenant is afterwards presented by the homage, does not give the lord any right to a fine. Rer v. Hendon, 2 T. R. 484. And see Garland v. Jekill, 2 Bing. 273; 9 Moore, 502.

Under Lands Clauses Act.]-A lord of a manor, entitled by custom to fines on surrender and admittance to copyholds, is not entitled to the payment of any fine upon the execution of a conveyance by a copyholder to a company, under the Lands Clauses Act, 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18, s. 95, or upon the enrolment of such conveyance; nor to any compensation for the loss thereof. Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England v. London and South-Western Railway Company, 14 C. B. 743; 2 C. L. R. 1797; 23 L. J., C. P. 177; 18 Jur. 911.

On Enfranchisement.]-Where copyhold lands are taken by a railway company, such fines for admittance as would, upon a compulsory enfranchisement under 21 & 22 Vict. c. 94, s. 6, be payable by the tenants requiring enfranchisement, are not claimable by the lord against the company. Wilson. In re, 32 L. J., Ch. 191; 7 L. T. 772; 11 W. R. 294-L. J.


On Renewal of Leases.]-A custom to renew copyholds for lives can only be on payment of Wharton v. King, 3 Anst. 659; certain fines. S. P., Abergavenny (Lord) v. Thomas, 3 Anst. 668, n.

Equitable Jurisdiction over.]-A court of equity has no jurisdiction to direct a fine in respect of copyholds to which an infant has become entitled as customary heir of an intestate to be raised by a mortgage of the copyholds. Harbroe v. Combes, 43 L. J., Ch. 336. See also ALIENATION, infra.

Right of Steward to Receive.]-See STEWARD, | tance, and of whom nothing was known. Doed. infra. Le Keux v. Harrison, 6 Q. B. 631 ; 14 L. J., Q. B. 77; 9 Jur. 104.

Action for.]-Indebitatus assumpsit lies for copyhold tolls and fines. Wakefield v. Hunt, 2 Dougl. 727.

e. Forfeiture.

Pro Defectu-Quousque.]-Although the lord of the manor proceeds in the first instance on his right to enter and seize quousque pro defectu tenentis, if that be answered, he may neverthe-in less recover on a right of entry and seizure quousque the fine is satisfied. Doe d. Twining v. Muscott, 12 M. & W. 832; 14 L. J., Ex. 185. The right of entry quousque is not affected by 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 65, s. 9. Ib.

A lord of a manor cannot seize a copyhold estate, as forfeited pro defectu tenentis, without a custom. Doe d. Tarrant v. Hellier, 3 T. R. 162.

If one of several co-heirs of a copyholder is a feme covert at the time of the ancestor's death, and the lord seizes the whole estate (in default of the heir's not coming in to be admitted after three proclamations), without first appointing an attorney or a guardian for the feme covert, according to 9 Geo. 1, c. 29, a seizure of the whole estate is irregular, though not known

to the lord that one of the heirs is a feme Covert. Ib.

A forfeiture of a copyhold estate can only be taken advantage of by him who is lord at the time of the forfeiture, except where the act of forfeiture destroys the estate. lb.

In what Right.-A lord may seize copyhold land quousque, in virtue of a right which accrued to the preceding lord, on default of the heir's coming in to be admitted; and that although he is the devisee, and not the heir of the preceding lord but to entitle the lord to make such seizure, there must be three proclamations made, at three consecutive courts. Doe d. Borer v. Truman, 1 B. & Ad: 736.

Mortgaged Land. ]-Where a copyhold was surrendered to a mortgagee and his administrators, and no condition was expressed in the surrender, and the mortgagee died intestate and without an heir:-Held, that the lord of the manor was entitled to enter upon the copyhold as an escheat. Att.-Gen. v. Leeds (Duke), 2 Mylne & K. 343.

Waste.]-On a mandamus to the lord to admit trustees of a building society, interested as mortgagees, the return setting up a forfeiture for permissive waste, but the tenement having since been rebuilt-Held, that the question was. whether the lord had a right to seize, and it was left to the jury whether, when the tenant who such a ruinous state as not to be fairly repairhad mortgaged was admitted, the premises were able; or whether he had delayed repairing for an unreasonable time. Reg. v. Dare, 2 F. & F. 355.

Against Heir-Jus Tertii.]-The heir of copyhold lands not appearing on proclamations, the lord seized quousque afterwards the heir claimed, and, the lord declining to admit him, on the supposition that another party had obtained title, it was ordered by the court by consent of the heir and lord (no other party appearing), that an ejectment should be brought to try the right, the heir being lessor of the plaintiff, and the lord defendant on the trial. The heir proved title, and the defendant put in a will of the ancestor, devising the lands to the London Annuity Society. No further evidence being given for the defendant :-Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, for that the ford, though he had seized quousque, could not hold against the heir on the mere proof of a devise to parties who had not claimed admit

A lord may enter for waste committed by a

copyholder for life, though there is an interme

diate estate in remainder between the estate of
d. Folkes v. Clements, 2 M. & S. 68.
copyholder for life and the lord's reversion. Doe

for a forfeiture by waste, the jury find there has
If in ejectment by a lord against a copyholder,
been no damage, there is no waste and no for-
feiture. Doe d. Grubb v. Burlington (Earl). 2
N. & M. 534; 5 B. & Ad. 507.

Semble, that the summoning a copyholder known to be in India to attend a court baron in a fortnight is an inequitable act whereon to found a forfeiture by the copyholder. Andrews v. Hulse, 4 Kay & J. 372 ; 27 L. J., Ch. 655; i Jur., N. S. 581.

Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 65, s. 9, enacting that no Compulsory Sale-Against Infant.]—The 11 infant shall forfeit copyhold land for his neglect or refusal to be admitted, does not prevent the lord from seizing quousque. Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal Company (in error), 9 Q. B. 469; 5 Railw. Cas. 34; 16 L. J., Q. B. 107; 11 Jur. 429-Ex. Ch. See S. C. in the House of Lords, 3 H. L. Cas. 794; 17 Jur. 73.

A canal company was authorized by statute to purchase land on voluntary or compulsory sale by the persons interested (at prices to be agreed upon or ascertained by commissioners or a jury). and a form of conveyance was prescribed purporting that the party granted all his "right, title and interest to and in the same, and every part thereof, to hold to the company for ever. The company was authorized to enter upon payment of the price or tender, and was made liable to render compensation for damage done by their works, if claimed within six months. A copyholder in fee executed a conveyance in the statutory form to the company, who paid him the price and entered:-Held, that the conveyance passed only such interest as the copyholder could convey without the lord, and that on the copyholder's death, no other person having been admitted, the lord might seize quousque for want of a tenant, and maintain ejectment and an action for mesne profits against the company. Ib.

[blocks in formation]
« EelmineJätka »