Page images
PDF
EPUB

Whether

manor

divisible.

1905.2 ch.86

to escheat and owing attendance at the court (b). If the number of such tenants is reduced below two, the court cannot be held, and the manor ceases to exist (c), but may survive as a manor by reputation for the purpose of making a title to franchises or for holding copyholders' courts (d). If all the demesnes are alienated the manor as such is extinguished and can be no more than a lordship in gross, and a temporary severance of all the demesnes, as by a lease for years (e), will cause a suspension of the manor (ƒ).

Generally speaking, a manor is not divisible (g), but there appears to be an exception to this rule in the case of a partition among coparceners. In an early case it was agreed that if upon such a partition the demesnes were allotted to one sister, and the tenants' services to another, there would indeed be an absolute extinction; yet, if one died without issue and the other inherited, the manor

(b) Delacherois v. Delacherois, 11 H. L. Cas. 62.

(c) Bradshaw v. Lawson, 4 T. R. 443.

(d) Curzon v. Lomaz, 5 Esp. 60; Soane v. Ireland, 10 East, 259; and see Doe d. Clayton v. Williams, 11 M. & W. 803.

(e) Marsh v. Smith, 1 Leon. 26, 27; Hartop v. Dalby, Hetl. 14.

(f) As to the antiquity and constitution of manors, see Glover v. Lane, 3 T. R. 445; Soane v. Ireland, 10 East, 259; Co. Copyh. s. 31; 2 Bro. Abr. "Tenures," 102; 2 Ro. Abr. 120. Some writers have thought that manors might be created at any time before the statute Quia Emptores, 18 Edw. I. c. 1, which was extended to tenants in capite by the statute De Prærogativa Regis, 17 Edw. II. st. 1, c. 6. Manors existed in their present form early in the eleventh century,

and in a very similar form they extend to a much more distant antiquity. There seems no reason to suppose that the number of legal manors was ever much increased after the Norman Conquest in the settled parts of England. Although fresh tenures might be created, the right to hold a new court was a matter of royal prerogative, and after a time it was held that even the king could not make a new court, "for matters which depend upon the continuance of time come not within the compass of the king's prerogative": Co. Copyh. s. 31.

(g) Bright v. Forth, Cro. Eliz. 442; Sir Moyle Finch's Case, 6 Rep. 63a; The Queen v. Buccleugh (Duchess), 6 Mod. 150. As to partition of manors by decrees of the Court of Chancery, see Cattley v. Arnold, 4 K. & J. 595.

would revive, because on the partition they were in by the act of the law, and the demesnes and services were united again by another act of law (h).

manor may

To take a fuller definition, a manor may be described as What a consisting: 1, of the demesnes of which the lord is seised, comprise. whether in his own occupation or in that of his lessees for years, which comprise also the waste lands subject to the tenants' rights of common, and also the lands of the copyholders and customary tenants which at law, and apart from the custom, are regarded as a kind of tenancies at will(); 2, of the services, or the rents and duties reserved. upon the original grants in fee, made to the freehold tenants before the statute Quia Emptores, 18 Edw. I. c. 1, since which no fresh tenures could be created; 3, of the reversion in those parts of the demesnes which have been granted for life or for an estate-tail, to which may be added that kind of possible reversion which consists in the right of escheat on the occasion of a tenant dying intestate and heirless; 4, and there are in general, either annexed or appurtenant to the manor, a variety of franchises, such as the right to have a court-leet, waifs and strays, or treasuretrove, the liberties of holding fairs and markets, of taking tolls, and the like (k); and 5, a court-baron for the free

(h) Yearb. Trin. 12 Hen. IV. fo. 25; Yearb. Trin. 26 Hen. VIII. fo. 4, pl. 15; Thetford v. Thetford, 1 Leon. 204; Sir Moyle Finch's Case, 6 Rep. 63 a. In former times there were numerous examples of the severance of manors between co-heiresses at law or co-heirs in gavelkind, and in one instance a dowager's third was treated as a manor by itself: Bragg's Case, Godb. 135.

(i) Att.-Gen. v. Parsons, 2 Cr. & J. 279.

(A) Franchises are defined to be royal privileges or branches of the

king's prerogative, subsisting in a
subject by grant from the crown,
or under a prescription implying a
grant. They are chiefly of two
kinds, viz. 1, those which were
parts of the prerogative originally,
as the right to wreck, to the goods
and chattels of felons, &c.; and,
2, those which could have no exist-
ence until their creation by the
crown. The first, but not the
second class, are merged in the
prerogative when the crown ac-
quires the lands to which they are
annexed, and will not pass as ap-
purtenant to the land upon any

Alienation of the

demesnes.

holders and a customary court for the copyholders (if any) are necessary incidents to every manor. The manor is presumed to be conterminous with the parish (); but it may comprise more than one parish or township, or may consist of a smaller district (m). Where the manor is or has been of the same extent as the parish, it will usually have an advowson appendant to the demesnes which will pass with the manor (n), but if once severed will be turned into an advowson in gross. When the manor abuts upon the sea, the fore-shore between the high and low watermarks of the average tides may be parcel of its waste land, and this is generally the case when the lord has by grant or prescription the franchise of taking wreck (o). Without any of these profits the lord has rights of appointing officers, and of general superintendence, which make the ownership of a seignory more than a mere "feather in the cap," and render it in any case a valuable right susceptible of possession and actual enjoyment (p).

Since no new tenure might be created since 18 Edw. I. by any private person on any conveyance in fee simple, upon the alienation of any of the demesnes they cease for ever to be parcel of the manor, and new services cannot be reserved; and even if freehold lands escheat to the lord or are purchased by him, they cannot become parcel of the manor again, and will not pass by a conveyance of "the manor and lands belonging thereto." But all the lands

new grant without express words,
either mentioning the franchise
which was merged, or at least
stating that the new grantee shall
hold the land "in as large and
ample a manner as the former
owner held it": Abbot of Strata-
Mercella's Case, 9 Rep. 24 a; Rex v.
Capper, 5 Price, 217, 258. For an
account of the principal franchises,
see post, c. vii.

(1) Blackst. Comm. i. 113, 114.
(m) Bracton, iv. c. 31, fo. 212;

Co. Litt. 58 a.

(n) Higgins v. Grant, Cro. Eliz. 18; Rooper v. Harrison, 2 K. & J. 86; Att.-Gen. v. Sitwell, 1 Y. & C. Ex. 559.

(0) Sir Henry Constable's Case, 5 Rep. 106 a, 107a; Ex parte Tomline, Re Walton-cum-Trimley Manor, 21 W. R. 475; Att.-Gen. v. Emerson, [1891] App. Cas. 649.

(p) Christchurch (Dean and Ch.) v. Buckingham (Duke of), 17 C. B. N. S. 391.

which originally formed part of the manor, or were held of it, are said to lie within the ambit of the manor, and in some points are subject to the jurisdiction of its courts, and in common parlance are said to be still "within the manor" (q).

manor.

The devise of a manor carries everything appendant or Devise of appurtenant at the time of the testator's death, unless a contrary intention appears by the will (r).

of manor.

The conveyance of a manor will carry the profits, includ- Conveyance ing minerals under the wastes, even if their existence was not known when the contract was made (s); and now all usual rights incident or belonging to a manor will pass under its name, unless a contrary intention appears, by virtue of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (t).

It was formerly held, that if the lord granted away the freehold of all the copyhold lands, or several of them, the grantee would have a kind of manor and might hold courts (u). But it is now settled that the land is severed, that no courts can be held, and that the customary estates must be dealt with by common law conveyances, although the copyholders are still said to hold by their customary tenure, and to be liable to all such payments and services as are not connected with attendance at a

copy hold

court (x). With respect to the subjects of copyhold tenure, Lord Subjects of Coke says that "all lands and tenements within a manor, tenure. and whatever concerns lands or tenements, may be granted by copy" (y), and he selects as examples: 1, a customary

(9) Delacherois v. Delacherois, 11 H. L. Cas. 62. This would seem not to apply to escheated copyholds or lands enfranchised under the Copyhold Acts.

(r) Hicks v. Sallitt, 3 De G. M. & G. 782.

(8) Att.-Gen. v. Ewelme Hospital, 17 Beav. 366.

(t) Sect. 6.

(u) Melwich v. Luter, 4 Rep. 26 a;
Neale v. Jackson, 4 Rep. 26 b.

(x) Bright v. Forth, Cro. Eliz.
442; Bell and Langley's Case, 4
Leon. 230; Phillips v. Ball, 6 C.
B. N. S. 811. Cf. Gilb. Ten. 209;
Lemon v. Blackwell, Skin. 191.
(y) Co. Litt. 58 b.

manor.

manor (≈); 2, underwood without the soil, or the separate herbage or vesture of land; and 3, a fair appendant to a "Things that lie not in tenure are not grantable by copy, as rents, commons in gross, advowsons in gross, and such like, all which are incorporeal hereditaments and therefore no rent can issue out of them, neither can they be held by any manner of service. But an advowson appendant, a common appendant, or a fair appendant, may pass by copy, by reason of the principal thing to which they are appendant; and generally what things soever are parcel of the manor, and are of perpetuity, may be granted by copy according to the custom, as underwoods, for after they are cut they will grow again; and so of herbage or any other profit of the manor" (a); and he shows that there might be a copyhold grant of "twenty loads of hasel or as many of maple, in the disjunctive, to be cut down and taken by the grantee," or of "twenty trees growing upon Blackacre or Whiteacre to be cut down yearly by the lord and delivered to the grantee on such a day," and the

like.

The subjects of customary tenure are most usually portions of the demesne lands which have been demised by copy of court-roll from time immemorial as separate copyhold tenements. By special custom, however, but in all cases with the consent of the homage-jury at a customary court, fresh portions of the waste might be granted as copyholds (b); and where the sea-shore or a river-bed forms part of a manor there have been similar customs of granting portions for fishing-places, as fresh copyholds (c). But no

(z) It was resolved in Neville's Case, 11 Rep. 17 a, that a manor may be a copyhold, and that the customary lord may hold courts and grant copies; that the copyhold manor will pass by surrender and admittance, and that its lord shall pay fines on descent and alienation. There can be no free

holders of such a copyhold manor or reputed manor. But see The King v. Stanton, Cro. Jac. 259.

(a) Hoe v. Taylor, 4 Rep. 30b; Co. Copyh. s. 42.

(b) Arlett v. Ellis, 7 B. & C. 346; Northwick (Lord) v. Stanway, 3 B. & P. 346.

(e) Lord Berkeley's Case in Hale,

« EelmineJätka »