it has been refused (7). This rule is not strictly confined to cases where the applicant is a copyhold tenant, but will apply if he has a primâ facie title to or is otherwise interested in copyhold property; thus inspection of the court-rolls will be allowed to the devisee of a rent out of a copyhold (m), or to a person otherwise interested in the inspection, as a freehold tenant claiming rights of common on the waste (n), though, perhaps, the freehold tenant should show that some action is depending (o). But in the case of Owen v. Wynn (p), where the plaintiffs claimed to be owners in fee simple of certain land, denying that they were tenants of a manor, of which the defendant was lord and of which he alleged them to be freehold tenants having only customary rights over the land in question, it was held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to inspection of the manorial court-rolls and documents, as they did not claim to be tenants of the manor. In a case, however, where a bill was filed to establish a right of common of vicinage, the existence of which was denied, it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to the production of all documents and records relating to the court-baron of the manor, and all accounts and memoranda relating to the taking of gravel, &c. from the waste, with a list of the documents relating to the title of the lord which did not affect the matter of the suit (q).

The rules relating to inspection of court-rolls apply equally to the steward's minute-books and other books and records of the manor (»).

An enfranchised copyholder as such has no right to Inspection inspect the court-rolls, because by the enfranchisement his after enfrantenement becomes severed from the manor; but if the

(1) Ord. XXXI. r. 19.

(m) Ex parte Barnes, 2 Dowl. N. S. 20.

(n) Addington v. Clode, 2 W. Bl. 1030; Ex parte Hutt, 7 Dowl. 690.

(0) Rex v. Allgood, 7 T. R. 746; Warrick v. Queen's College, Oxford,

L. R. 3 Eq. 683.

(p) 9 Ch. Div. 29.

(q) Minet v. Morgan, L. R. 11 Eq. 284.

(r) Folkard v. Hemet, 2 W. Bl. 1061.

chisement.

Custody of court-rolls when all lands have been enfranchised.

enfranchisement has taken place under the Copyhold Acts, the owner of the enfranchised lands now has access to the court-rolls and may have copies thereof upon payment of a reasonable sum for the same, and a scale of reasonable fees for such inspection and for taking such copies may be fixed by the Board of Agriculture (s).

It may be mentioned here that by the Copyhold Act, 1852, provisions were made enabling the lord of any manor, whereof all the lands had been enfranchised, to hand over, if he thought fit, all the court-rolls of the manor to the Copyhold Commissioners (now represented by the Board of Agriculture), and for securing to the persons seised of or interested in the enfranchised lands access to and inspection of the court-rolls on payment of such reasonable fees as the Commissioners might think proper (f). These provisions have, however, been enlarged by sect. 48 of the Copyhold Act, 1887, which empowers the lord, or any other person having custody of the courtrolls and manorial records with consent of the lord, to hand over, if he thinks fit, all or any of the court-rolls and manorial records to the Master of the Rolls, when all the lands which are held of or are parcel of the manor have been enfranchised; and the same section empowers the Master of the Rolls to make from time to time rules respecting the manner in which and the times at which inspection of such court-rolls and manorial records may be made, and office copies or certified extracts therefrom obtained, and as to the amount and mode of payment of such reasonable fees as he may fix for such office copies and certified extracts. The Act of 1887 also enabled the Commissioners to hand over to the Master of the Rolls all or any manorial court-rolls or records of which they might have obtained the custody under the provisions of the earlier Copyhold Acts (u).

(s) 15 & 16 Vict. c. 51, s. 20.
(t) Ibid. s. 21.

(u) 50 & 51 Vict. c. 73, s. 48.

The amount of the steward's fees must in each case be Steward's fees. regulated by the custom of the manor, or, in the absence of a custom, either by the amount of work and labour done or by special agreement. Thus where a person was admitted to several copyhold tenements at one time, the steward was held not to be entitled as a matter of general right to full fees on each admission separately, and it was said by the Court that as there was no particular stipulation for the price, the sum due must be determined either by the custom of the manor or on a quantum meruit. “In this case there is no custom of the manor in evidence; therefore the plaintiff's right must stand upon a quantum meruit" (x). The following extracts from the case of Traherne v. Gardner (y) will serve to show the principles on which the Courts have held that stewards' fees should be assessed. A tenant dying seised of four separate copyhold tenements devised them to the plaintiffs as jointtenants, who claimed to be admitted to all the tenements, at first by a single admission, and afterwards by two admissions, inasmuch as two of the copyholds had been originally part of one tenement held by a former tenant, and the other two had similarly been held as one tenement by another former tenant. The steward refused to make either of these admissions, and required that there should be four separate admissions and the payment of four separate sets of fines on each. He also claimed a fee in respect of the abolition of a surrender to the use of a will. In order to avoid a forfeiture, the plaintiffs took four separate admissions and were admitted. Four full sets of fees with four separate stamps and four sums of six shillings and eight pence, in respect of the admission being of two joint-tenants, were claimed by the steward. These fees were paid under a written protest against the right to more than two admissions, and against the compensation

(x) Everest v. Glyn, 6 Taunt. 425, 430.

(y) 25 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 201; S. C., 5 E. & B. 913.

fee for a surrender to the use of the will, and the fee in respect of the admission of joint-tenants. There was no custom proved in the manor that there should be only one admission on the claim of one person to be admitted to several separate tenements, nor any custom establishing the amount of the steward's fees upon an admission to several tenements or his right to claim a fee in respect of the admission of a joint-tenant.

The points for the decision of the court were (1) the right of the steward of the manor to insist on the general devisee of a deceased copyholder being admitted as many times and paying as many entire sets of court-fees as the number of copyhold tenements or parts of tenements of which the testator died seised; (2) the right of the steward to require payment of as many admission stamps as there were tenements of which the testator died seised; (3) whether (assuming the right to separate admissions to be established) the steward, after a reunion in one person of a tenement which had been previously surrendered to different persons, could insist on a separate admission to each such once distinct portion; (4) assuming the steward to be right in requiring four admissions in the circumstances, to what fees was he entitled; (5) the right of the steward to charge £2 16s. 10d. as a fee consequent on the abolition of a surrender to the use of a will; (6) the right of the steward to charge 6s. 8d. for the admission of each joint-tenant beyond the first. It was held that the lord was entitled to require an admittance in respect of each of the tenements, and that four sets of fees and four stamps were payable but that there was no ground for the claim by the steward of a separate fee in respect of the admission of each joint-tenant. And it was held also that the steward was not entitled to be paid a full set of fees in respect of each tenement, but only a quantum meruit for his additional labour, and that the compensation to which he was entitled for the abolition of a surrender to the use of the will was also to be ascertained upon a quantum

meruit; and further, that as the payments made to the steward could not be considered as voluntary, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover back the fee in respect of the admission of a joint-tenant and what the Master should find that the steward was not entitled to, upon the question of a quantum meruit.

..

Lord Campbell in giving judgment said that the Court was not to be supposed to sanction the practice which had prevailed in the manor, which appeared to him to be an instance of a manor kept up for the sake of obtaining fees, and that as regarded the quantum of fees, there would be a reference to the Master to settle the amount. "We are now," he said, "to lay down principles by which the rights of the parties must be governed. In so doing, we must take care that no injury is done either to the lord or to the steward on the one hand, or to the tenants on the other. It is important to the tenant that the court-roll should be regularly kept, so as to show a perfect history of the title of each tenement. . . . Now, the first question is whether the action can be maintained as to certain payments which are said to have been voluntarily made, and I am of opinion that the action will lie for every one of the payments which have been exacted and are not warranted by the custom of the manor. It would be strange if the plaintiff, who from the first strenuously resisted the payment of the fees demanded and claimed to be admitted to the property by one admission, should be held to have voluntarily paid the fees exacted and paid, and though in the written protest there are some words which appear to limit it to the payments beyond two admittances, yet the plaintiff verbally protested against the whole, and I think the written protest cannot be considered as doing away with the verbal protest so as to make the other payments voluntary, and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover all that the defendants cannot show that they are entitled to receive. Then the question is, whether the lord was bound to admit the plaintiffs to all the customary