When fine not due. the lands in respect of which the fine is due (); but if he claims quit-rents or heriots, he must show the particular tenements (m). The fine is not a charge upon the lands (n); and an action to recover it must be brought within six years of the cause of action accruing (o). If a copyholder in fee dies, and his heir does not take admittance, the lord cannot bring an action against the heir for the fine, but may in general seize the copyhold (p); but if, the heir being an infant, the lord takes proceedings for recovering the fine under 11 Geo. IV. & 1 Will. IV. c. 65, he is restricted to his statutory remedies (2). A married woman, entitled to copyholds, will no longer require the benefit of that Act if married since the 1st of January, 1883, or if her title accrued after that date (). The Lunacy Act, 1890 (s), regulates the rights and remedies of a lord as to fines due for the estate of a lunatic so found by inquisition. A covenant to surrender a copyhold, though presented by the homage, does not entitle the lord to any fine, and the assignee of the benefit of the covenant has a right to be admitted upon payment of a single fine (t). A covenant to surrender and to do all acts for perfectly surrendering and assuring the estate to the purchaser is not broken by non-payment of the fine on admission, because it is due only after the purchaser's admittance, as has before been mentioned (u). A husband is not obliged to be admitted, or to pay a fine, in respect of his wife's estate in fee or other estate (x). On a release by one joint tenant or one (1) North v. Strafford (Earl of), 3 P. Wms. 148, 151. (m) Basingstoke (Mayor of) v. Bolton (Lord), 3 Dr. 50. (n) Fitcham v. Finch, 1 Ro. Abr. (0) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 42, s. 3. (9) See Clayton v. Cooke, 2 Atk. 449. (r) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 75, ss. 2, 5. (8) 53 Vict. c. 5, s. 126. (t) Rex v. Hendon Manor (Lord of), 2 T. R. 484. (u) Graham v. Sime, 1 East, 632; ante, p. 76. (x) Co. Copyh. s. 56; and see now 45 & 46 Vict. c. 75. coparcener to another, or by a person having a right in the land to the tenant in possession, no fine is due (y). An entry by the steward in his books of the admission of a surrenderee is a mere memorandum, and does not entitle the lord to a fine (≈); nor will the acceptance of rent by the steward from a surrenderee, or any other act of admittance, unless he has authority to make the admittance, operate to admit the surrenderee or make him liable to the fine (a). The lord cannot claim a fine in respect of any devolution of the equitable title to copyholds where the legal estate remains in the person who has already been admitted tenant on the roll (b). Again, if a testator, instead of devising his copyholds to trustees, gives his executors merely a power to sell his copyhold hereditaments, and to convey and assure them to a purchaser, the executors may sell without taking admittance, and the purchaser will be entitled to admission as if there had been an express devise to him in the will, and only one fine will be due on his admittance (c). No fine is due. from a trustee who has disclaimed before acting in the trusts of a devise of copyholds (d). Where a copyholder devised his estate to a devisee in fee subject to a term of years, which he gave to trustees, and the devisee was admitted on payment of a full fine, but the lord seized quousque to compel the trustees of the term to come for admittance and pay a fine, it was held that, as by the form of admittance the devisee had been admitted in præsenti, and not to an estate in remainder, the lord had a tenant on the roll and had received a full fine, and therefore could not force the trustees to come for admittance (e). (y) See Co. Litt. 193 a, 318 a. (z) Hayward v. Raw, 6 H. & N. 308. (a) Rawlinson v. Green, Poph. 127; S. C. 3 Buls. 237. (b) Hall v. Bromley, 35 Ch. Div. 642. (c) Holder d. Šulyard v. Preston, 2 Wils. 400; Glass v. Richardson, 2 De G. M. & G. 658; Reg. v. Wilson, 3 B. & S. 201. (d) Wellesley (Viscount) v. Withers, 4 E. & B. 750. (e) Everingham v. Ivatt, L. R. 8 Q. B. 388. In the case of Bristow v. Booth (ƒ), it appeared that P. P., a copyhold tenant of the manor of Woodford, in Essex, who had been duly admitted, had devised his copyholds to his son on trust. The son was admitted and paid a fine; and by his will he devised all his real and personal estate to his widow, whom he appointed his sole executrix. The widow proved the will, but executed a deed of disclaimer as to the copyholds. The customary heir-at-law of the son being then abroad and out of the jurisdiction, the defendant was, by decree of the Court, appointed a trustee of the will of P. P. in substitution for the son, and the estate in the copyholds was vested in the defendant under the powers of the Trustee Acts. The defendant was then duly admitted as such substituted trustee, but the lords of the manor claimed two fines, contending that, on the execution of the disclaimer by the widow, the copyhold hereditaments descended on and became vested in the customary heir-at-law of the son, and that on such descent a fine was due, and that another was due on the admittance of the defendant as trustee. But the Court of Common Pleas held that the defendant was entitled to be admitted on payment of one fine only, as he did not claim through the customary heir, but took as substituted trustee. The effect of the Settled Land Act, 1882, and of a disposition by a tenant for life under the powers of that Act on the lord's fine was considered in the case of In re Naylor and Spendla's Contract (g). A copyholder who had been admitted to copyholds for a customary estate in fee simple devised them to trustees upon trust to pay the rents to his widow for life. Shortly after his death, the widow sold the property under the powers of the Settled Land Act, 1882. The trustees had not been admitted, and on the admittance of the purchaser the lord claimed to be paid, in addition to the fine payable on his admittance, the fine which would have been paid if the trustees had been ad (ƒ) L. R. 5 C. P. 80. (g) 34 Ch. Div. 217. mitted. The Act of 1882 provides that when the tenant for life sells under the provisions of the Act, he may, if the land is copyhold land vested in trustees, convey the same for the estate which is the subject of the settlement by deed, which shall be entered on the court rolls of the manor (h), and that upon production of the deed to the steward, and "payment of customary fines, fees, and other dues or payments, any person whose title under the deed requires to be perfected by admittance shall be admitted accordingly" (i). It was held by Cotton and Bowen, L. JJ., affirming the decision of Chitty, J., that the lord could claim one fine only; but from this judgment Fry, L. J., dissented. "The question is," said Cotton, L. J., "whether those words on payment of customary fines, &c.,' give the lord a right to demand, in addition to the fine payable by the purchaser on admittance, a fine as on the admittance of the trustees. In my opinion the Act was not intended to take away any of the rights of the lord, but was not intended to give him any. The lord would have no right to a fine for the admittance of trustees who never were admitted, and from whom the purchaser's right to be admitted is not derived. If the words 'on payment of customary fines' had not been inserted, it might have been contended that as the statute created a new kind of title to admittance, the lord could not demand a fine on the admittance of the purchaser. The words have a reasonable meaning without construing them to mean such fine as would have been payable if the purchaser had obtained a title to admittance in the way in which he must have obtained it if the Settled Land Act had not been passed." And in this opinion Bowen, L. J., concurred; but Fry, L. J., dissented, remarking that the words of the section were very general, and that the statute did not speak of the customary fines, but simply of customary fines, fees, &c. "It is obvious," he said, "that there are no customary E. (h) Sect. 20 (1). (i) Sect. 20 (3). Fines on conveyances Clauses Acts. fees payable on the new form of deed given by the statute. What, then, are the customary fees and payments referred to? There are two possible answers: either those which would have been payable on or before admittance if the Act had not passed, or those which would have been payable on admittance if the Act had not passed. The former construction leaves the rights of the lord untouched, the latter deprives him of his rights. In my opinion the Act was not intended to interfere with the rights of the lord, and I think that the construction which leaves them untouched is to be preferred." On the execution of a conveyance under the Lands under Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, by a copyholder to a company empowered to take land, no fine is due, and the lord is not entitled to any fine upon the enrolment of the conveyance, nor to any compensation for the loss of his tenant; but he may be entitled to a fine on the surrender, if such fines are payable in the manor by custom (k). The Lands Clauses Act of 1845, however, requires (7) the company to procure the enfranchisement of the lands from the fines, heriots, and other services, to which meanwhile the lands continue to be subject notwithstanding the enrolment of the conveyance, and directs that in estimating the amount to be paid to the lord, allowance must be made in respect of the loss of the fines, heriots, and dues payable on death, descent, and alienation caused by the vesting of the lands in the company and by their enfranchisement. In Lowther v. Caledonian Railway Co. (m), it appeared that the defendant company in the year 1873 took possession of certain lands, partly copyhold of the manor of Stainton in Cumberland, where the fines are fixed, and partly copyhold of the manor of West Linton in the same county, where an arbitrary fine of two years' improved value is payable on death of either the lord or (k) Eccles. Comrs. for England v. L. & S. W. Rail. Co., 14 C. B. 743. (1) 8 Vict. c. 18, s. 96. |