by the vendor with the said club for the sale to them, the said land and houses were conveyed by way of mortgage to Mr. Henry Alcock, to secure the sum of 1731. 14s. paid by him at the request and by the direction of the said club as and for the purchase-money of the said land, the sum of 100l. advanced by him to the members of the club, and all such further sums of money as he shall advance to them, not exceeding in the whole 5007.; the purchase-money for the said land did not amount to the sum of 301. for each member of the club. By a deed bearing date the 16th of December, 1825, the property was charged with a further sum of money. The order in which members were entitled to have houses built for them was determined by lot. In March, 1824, Hugh Ellison drew his share, and between that time and August, 1825, had a house built for him by the club on the said purchased land, according to the said articles of agreement, and during the last-mentioned month he entered into possession thereof, and continued to live therein with his family till 1842, when he died. He paid rent for the house to the club from 1832 to July, 1838. He was assessed and paid rates for the relief of the poor of the parish of Carlton from July, 1833, though previous to that time the club had paid them for that house. The annual value and rent of the house was under 107. On the 1st of April, 1839, Hugh Ellison had paid upwards of 301. by his monthly and annual payments in respect of his share in the said building club. The said club ended in July, 1838, when all the shares were paid up and the houses built; and Hugh Ellison had paid, in monthly payments of 6s. 8d. each, the sum of 651., and in annual payments of 11. each the sum of 167., making together the sum of 811. On the 23rd November, 1839, the monies and interest then due to him from the club having been paid off by them, the mortgagee conveyed the said land, with the houses so built on it, to the several 1849. The QUEEN V. Inhabitants of CARLTON. 1849. The QUEEN บ. Inhabitants of CARLTON. members of the club, and the said house so occupied by Hugh Ellison as aforesaid was by the said deed conveyed to him in fee. The pauper, Jane Ellison, lived unemancipated with her father in Carlton till his death in 1842, and her eldest bastard child was born there. Upon these facts the respondents contended that Hugh Ellison, and consequently the pauper, did not acquire a settlement in their parish. The sessions held, subject to the opinion of this Court, that Hugh Ellison did acquire a settlement in the parish of Carlton, which the pauper derived from him. The question for this Court is, whether on these facts Hugh Ellison acquired a settlement in the parish of Carlton which the pauper derived from him? If this Court should be of opinion that Hugh Ellison did so acquire a settlement in the parish of Carlton which Jane Ellison derived from him, then the order of sessions is to be confirmed; otherwise the order of sessions is to be quashed, and the order of justices is to be confirmed (a). Pashley and F. Thompson, in support of the order of sessions (b). The pauper claimed a derivative settlement from her father Hugh Ellison, who, in 1839, became the purchaser of an estate in Carlton for more than 301., within the meaning of the stat. 9 Geo. 1, c. 7, s. 5, and resided there for more than forty days after the completion of such purchase. The members of a building club, of which Ellison was one, purchased in 1822 a piece of land in Carlton, on which houses were built, which were conveyed to the members as they became (a) The sessions had reserved the question, whether the facts stated in the case were properly admissible under the grounds of appeal; but the only question argued before this Court was, whether on the facts stated the pauper gained a settlement in Carlton. (b) The case was argued May 3rd, 1848, before Lord Denman, C. J., Patteson, Wightman, and Erle, Js. entitled to them. According to the rules of the club each member was to pay a monthly and an annual subscription; and after this house was built, and Ellison took possession, he continued to pay rent to the club for six years. It was not until 1839, when he had paid up all his subscriptions, and conformed to all the rules and regulations of the club, and the land and house were conveyed to him, that his title became complete; and at that time he had bonâ fide paid about 801. Previous to that time he had no certain definite interest in the land; his interest was uncertain and contingent. This is not like the case of Rex v. Dunchurch (a), where the original purchase money was less than 301., but it was increased to more than that amount by subsequent improvements; the facts of the present case are distinguishable from those in the case cited. R. Hall and Pickering, contrà. It is submitted that the pauper did not gain any settlement in Carlton. In 1822 the members of the club purchased the land, and immediately mortgaged it to enable them to pay the purchase-money; it was then that Ellison purchased his estate, and at that time his interest in the land was not worth 301. The members of the club then became mortgagors in possession, subject to the equity of redemption. They had, according to Rex v. Herstmonceaux (b), an absolute interest in the land, liable to a defeasance on a particular event. They had more than an equitable right, they had an equitable estate. A mortgagor in possession has such an interest as will confer a settlement, Rex v. Edington (c). In Rex v. Tedford (d) the Court held that the purchase of an estate for more than 301. gained a settlement, although he borrowed part of the money on mortgage to pay for it. The members of the club were in the nature of joint tenants or tenants in (a) Burr. S. C. 553. (b) 7 B. & C. 551. (c) 1 East, 288. 1849. The QUEEN v. Inhabitants of 1849. The QUEEN V. Inhabitants of common, and afterwards the estate is severed and each party takes his share of the purchase. In 1839, Ellison acquired an absolute property in the land and house; the land was not worth 307. when purchased by the club, but it subsequently acquired an additional value by the erection of a house; the case, therefore, comes within the principle laid down in Rex v. Dunchurch (a), where the test is said to be what is the value at the time of the purchase; it is there said by Lord Mansfield, "No money afterwards laid out can make the prior purchase to have been of a greater value than it was at the time of making it." LORD DENMAN, C. J., now delivered the judgment of the Court. In this case the question was, whether Hugh Ellison gained a settlement by purchase of an estate or interest in land of which the purchase-money bonâ fide paid was 307. The fee simple was conveyed to him in 1839, at which time he had paid 817., and the conveyance was made to him in consideration of that money. But it was contended that he had, in 1822, acquired an equitable estate in the land on which the house was afterwards built; that such estate was acquired for less than 301., and that if the value was raised to the requisite amount only by improvements subsequent to the purchase of the interest no settlement was gained. The law is clearly so, Rex v. Dunchurch (b), but we do not find the facts to bring the present case within that law. The agreement for the purchase was by the building club for the purposes thereof, and the mortgage was by the same club; and although the members of the club had an interest in the land while the buildings were going on, yet no individual member had a clear equitable estate in any particular portion or house until it was actually conveyed. In Rex v. Woolpit (c), Bayley, J., citing Rex v. (a) Burr. S. C. 553. (b) Ibid. (c) 4 Dowl. & Ry. 456. Gaddington (a), and Rex v. Long Bennington, states, that an equitable right is not sufficient to confer a settlement, it must be an equitable estate actually vested. Then if the equitable interest prior to the conveyance would not have been sufficient to have conferred a settlement if a sufficient price had been paid, neither was it sufficient to make the time of the acquirement of that interest the time of the purchase, so as to make the subsequent buildings to be improvements after the purchase. We do not find that any estate has vested in the pauper's father till the conveyance of the fee, and at that time the purchase money paid amounted to more than 301., and consequently a settlement was gained. The order of sessions, therefore, is confirmed. Order confirmed. (a) 3 Dowl. & Ry. 403. 1849. The QUEEN v. Inhabitants of CARLTON. The QUEEN v. READ and others. July 5th. the overseers of A RULE had been obtained, calling upon Edward In March, 1845, Murrell, auditor of the Monmouthshire and Gloucester- the parish of C., shire district, to show cause why the disallowance made being indebted to W. and G., attorneys, for work done, in the sum of 491., their successors handed over to by him at the audit of the accounts of the Cheltenham Union, on the 6th July, 1847, of the sum of 2621. 38. 3d., of a sum of 4221. 9s. 2d., which had been paid being part by John Read and others, as overseers of the parish of a sum of money Cheltenham for the year ending the 25th March, 1847, ficient to pay to Messrs. Williams and Griffiths, attorneys, of Chelten- March, 1846, more than suf that debt. In the overseers who then went out of office were indebted to W. and G. in the sum of 2131. 3s. 3d. for work done during that year, and they handed over to their successors a sum of money which with rates then due, but not collected, was sufficient to pay both debts due to W. and G. In August, 1846, W. and G. for the first time sent in their bill, which was paid the same month out of the proceeds of a rate made in the July previous (the rates being made for six months in January and July). In July, 1847, the auditor disallowed both these sums paid to W. and G. The Court confirmed the disallowance of the sum of 491., but quashed the disallowance of the sum of 2131. 3s. 3d. |