Page images


Seventhly, improved value could not have been considered.—Lord Ellenborough, C. J. Of seltlement The difficulties that have been raised are occasioned by the decisions which by renting a

I am almost inclined to wish had never been made, that a tenement of tenement.

combined value is sufficient to constitute a settlement. However, taking 11. The value, the case as it stands upon the subsisting authorities, and keeping in sight

the words of the act, which have been strongly and properly pressed on our consideration, I ask myself, is this a coming to settle on a tenement of the yearly value of 101.? The answer depends on the value to be attributed to the twenty-seven perches; now the party who comes to settle contemplates the taking of a tenement of the value of 31. 7s. 6d. He contracts for twentyseven perches, with manure to be supplied by the landlord, and upon these terms the tenement was of that value, and if that value, the whole exceeds 101. The pauper, then, undoubtedly comes to settle, in contemplation that he has taken and shall have the benefit of a tenement, of the value of 101

. But the question is put, Are these perches of the value of 31. 7s. 6d. at the time he comes to settle? The answer is, they are not, in point of actual pernancy, on the day when the party first takes possession ; but they subsist, in contract, of that value, the instant that he enters, and actually become so pursuant to the contract, by the act of the landlord, and the party afterwards occupies above forty days.' In this way of considering it, the tenement is of the contemplated value contracted for by the landlord, and afterwards made good by him. If we are bound down to the precise moment when the party enters, the consequence will be, that in many cases, the improved value, to which the landlord contracts to raise the land, can never be taken into account. In many contracts there will be stipulations of some advantage to the tenant, increasing the value of the tenement, which induce him to come to settle upon it, on the faith of having this improved value made good to him; these, therefore, when made good, may fairly be referred to the value at the time of the coming to settle. I might instance stipulations on the part of the landlord to paint and paper, or to make additions to the duelling. In cases like these the value contemplated and engaged for by the contract, as it is an improvement from which the tenant is to derive a benefit, and perhaps his motive for coming to inhabit there, may fairly be set down to the account of its value at the time he comes to settle within the meaning of the act. I do not venture into all the cases for the purpose of reconciling the various dicta with the statute. It would be an Herculean labour to conflict with, and I am not sure that it would be attended with success.Bayley, J. I agree that this was a tenement sufficient to confer a settlement. It has been argued that to constitute a tenement of the yearly value of 101., so as to make the party irremovable under this act, or, in other words, to confer a settlement, the tenement must be of the requisite value when he enters upon it

. But I think the argument would be more correctly stated thus-that the tenement must be of the value of 101. at the time of entry, or be made of that value at the expence of the landlord ; and that this is so appears from the distinction which has been

taken where the improvement is to be at the expence of the tenant; in which case it has been held that it ought not to be taken into the account. This was the principle on which Rex v. „iston was decided. The observation of Le Blanc, J., in Rex v. Ringwood, certainly was not made in reference to the distinction between the actual value of the land at the moment of entering, and its becoming of that value a short time afterwards by the agreement and act of the landlord. It seems to me, that whenever it is a part of the contract for the letting, that the land is to be improved at the expence of the landlord, and this is done, the tenement is to be accounted of the improved value. According to the language of some of the cases, the question is, whether the pauper was of sufficient ability to obtain credit for a tenement of the yearly value of 10l. And certainly it is the same thing as it regards his ability, whether the land were of that value at the moment of taking it

, or whether it was stipulated to be made so, and was made so afterwards at the expence of the landlord. I think both cases are equally within the words and spirit of the act.-, Abbott, J. It cannot escape our notice that, in Rex v. Aston, the increased value arose out of several acts voluntarily performed by the tenant: here it

arises, not out of any act done by the tenant, but from the act of the land- Seventhly, lord stipulated for before entry, and done in pursuance of that contract. Of settlement What is done by the landlord under such circumstances may, I think, fairly by renting a be considered as referable to the time of entry. If the Court were tied down tenement. to the precise time of entering, it would lead to very subtle inquiries, which 11. The value, would be inconvenient, as to the instant of time when such and such repairs &c. were made, as increase the value of the tenement to the necessary amount. To avoid such inquiries, I say, what is contracted for, before the entry, to be done by the landlord, and is afterwards done in pursuance of that contract, may be considered as done at the time of entering.Holroyd, J. To the same effect. Order confirmed.

Rex v. Aston, 6 M. f. S. 54. Order of removal of Sarah Jesson from Value increased Aston to Hales Owen, quashed. Case: The pauper was the widow of T. during a lease. Jesson, junior, son of Î. Jesson, elder, who, in 1800, took land in Hales years, not to be Owen for ninety-nine years, at 21. 2s. a year, and built on it two houses, regarded. each of the value of 51. 58. a year. When the first was finished, he went to live in it; and before the other was built, he let it for 51. 58. a year; and the tenant, when it was completed, entered and occupied to the present time. Jesson, junior, lived with his father as part of his family.—Lord Ellenborough, C. J. I think, upon looking at the language of the statute, that we are hound, in considering the value of a tenement, to regard that as its value which it bore when the party took it, and not the increased value which it has acquired by improvements made during his occupation. If we find that this tenement was of no greater value than 21. 2s. a year at the time when the pauper took and entered upon it, that must be deemed its value at the time he came to settle upon it. It cannot be that its value is to be perpetually fluctuating afterwards, the time pointed to, being that when he comes to settle in it; at which time, if it be not of the annual value of 101., he does not acquire a settlement by it. I forbear entering more into the details of this case, because I fear that many of the doubts that have arisen upon subjects like the present, are owing to extraneous dicta that have, from time to time, fallen from the bench. The principle, however, seems to be the principle is, this, that where a party comes into a parish with a sufficient credit to acquire that the person the taking of a tenement

of 10l. a year, this shall entitle him to reside has credit to take irremovably.—Bayley, J. The value of the tenement must be taken, as of pounds, value. the time when the person comes to settle in it. Rex v. Bilsdale Kirkham, is a strong authority in pôint. That case was, shortly, this: The pauper rented a tenement at 41. a year, which, during his occupation, became of the value of 15l. a year; and it was held that evidence to prove it of the increased value, ought to have been received, because being tenant from year to year, the lease began afresh every year, and was, in point of law, a new demise. This was the express ground of distinction taken by Lord Mansfield in that case.—Abbott, J. This case is neither within the words or meaning

of the act of parliament. Order of sessions confirmed.

Rex v. Whitechapel, 2 Bott, 132. Removal from Whitechapel to Westham, A furnished room quashed. Case: 'The pauper's husband (P. Allam) hired a house in White- taken, and the chapel at 8l. 8s. per annum, and lived in it till his death ; he also hired a room sessions did not in a rictualling house in W., at 38. a week, to be made use

of, and which find the value of was used as an office or place for the justices to meet and transact the parish tinct from that and other public business. The room was furnished with chairs and tables, of the tenement : and the landlord was to find firing. And the landlord was to have the use Heldman sufficient of the room when Allam did not want it. Allam had the key, and might have locked it if he would, but did not. Allam alone had the concern of, and paid for, the room.-Buller, J. There is nothing found as to the value of the fire and furniture, and all we can say is, that he has rented a tenement of 101. a year. Order quashed.

Rex v. Londonthorpe, 6 T. R. 377. John Ingram tvok a tenement of 61. If a chattel (as a a year, and rented a piece of waste ground at the yearly rent of 10s. 6d., placed upon land on which he had the privilege of bnilding a post windmill

. This he did at by the tenant, its the expence of 1201., and worked it for three quarters

of a year, but rented the value cannot be ground for two years and a half, the greater part of which time the mill was of the land. standing. The mill was constructed on cross traces, laid upon brick pillars,




Landlord's fix. tures, which are

taken into the

ment would not be of sufficient

Seventhly, but not attached or fixed thereto, which is the usual mode of building mills Of settlement of that nature. The mill was considered as the property of the tenant. He by renting u

let it to one J. for a quarter of a year at the rate of 91. a year, and during

that time resided in the said tenement at the rent of 61. The pauper sold 11. The value,

the mill afterwards as a chattel interest. It was never rated.---Per Lord Kenyon, C. J. There is no doubt but that the taking of a windmill attached to the ground of the value of 101. a year, will confer a settlement; a precipe will lie for such a windmill. The taking of a rabbit warren was also held to give a settlement, because it was a tenement; and so in the case of the landsale co'liery. But this windmill, as described in the case, is nothing but a chattel. And if in questions of this kind we were merely to consider the ability of the pauper, without at the same time considering whether he rented a tenement, we should abandon the statute altogether, and the decisions upon it. It might as well be said, that an iron malt mill would give a settlement. This post windmill was the sole property of the tenant bimself, and it was not fixed in the ground, but detached from it. But in order to confer a settlement it should be so connected with the land in legal contemplation, to fall within the description of a tenement.-Grose, J. It is no more a tenement than a large coffee mill put up in a house.

Rex v. St. Dunstan, in Kent, 4 B. f. C. 686; 7 D. JR. 178; 3 D. 4: R. parcel of the free. Mag. Ca. 378. Mary Wilson removed from Saint Mary, Canterbury, to hold, may be St. Dunstan. Order confirmed. Case : The pauper's husband, on the valuation of a ten

23rd of April, 1823, went to live in a house in St. Dunstan, at the yearly pound tenement, rent of 1ol.; he had not occupied it for a year, but he had been rated for though without the house in that parish, and had paid the assessment for one quarter; one them the tene.

Butler had occupied the house before the pauper's husband; at the time of

the hearing of the appeal, one Hunt held it, each of them paying the annual value to gain a settlement.

rent of 101. It had, for six years preceding the pauper's tenancy, been let, together with the articles of furniture hereinafter mentioned, at 10l. per annum. . All houses in St. Dunstan were rated at half their actual value; and in the assessment on the pauper's husband, the said house was valued at 31. 10s.: at the time of his occupation, the house was in a very bad state of repair, and then it would have required an expenditure of 40l. to put it into a tenantable condition : since his death, and previously to Hunt's tenancy, 121. had been expended upon it; there were a stove and cupboard in a room below stairs, a grate and a cupboard in the chamber, and a grate in the kitchen; the stove and grates had not originally belonged to the house, but had been put in by a tenant, and the landlord had taken them in part parment of rent about six years before; these were fixed with brick-work in the chimney places, but they might be removed without doing any injury w the chimney-places; the cupboards stood on the ground, and were supported by holdfasts—and these might also be removed without doing any other injury to the walls than leaving a few marks of nails; the use of these several articles was worth about 6d. per week; and the tenement, including the use of them, was worth 71. 108., and without them, about 61. per annum. ! any deduction, however small in amount, was to be made, in respect of the above-mentioned articles, the tenement would not be of the annual value of 101.-Abbott, C. J. It is found as a fact in the case, that these grates and cupboards were the property of the landlord, and affixed to the freehold, and they were taken by the pauper as the property of the landlord. I am, therefore, of opinion that they were a parcel of the tenement demised. Whatever might be the question, if they were merely tenants' fixtures, it is unnecessary to discuss in the present case. The sessions, in confirming the order, have stated their opinion to be, that if any deduction, however sınall in amount, is to be made in respect of these articles, the tenement would not be of the annual value of 101., from whence 1 infer, that in their judgment no deduction ought to be made.—Bayley, J. These articles being fixed to the freehold, and being part of the demised premises, I think they might enter into the valuation of the tenement.Littledale, J. If the landlorů had died, these articles would have gone to the heir, and not the executor. Then, as the annual value is increased by these fixtures, I think they must be taken into account with a view to the settlement. In Winne vi Ingleby,


B. & A. 625, and Colegrare v. Dias Santos, 2 B. & C. 76, articles savoring Seventhly, less of the realty, were held to be fixtures and parcel of the freehold. Of settlement

Res v. Framlingham, Burr. S. C. 748; 2 Bott, 201. S. Churchyard by renting a contracted with S. Hayle, to hire of him a public-house, &c., at the rent of tenement. 10!. per annum, Hayle to pay all parish rates and charges.-By Lord Mans

11. The value, field, C. J., and the Court. This was a good taking of a lease of a tene- &c. ment of the yearly value of 101., within the intention and meaning of the A contract of act of parliament. It turns upon the credit giren the person; now here, credit renting at ten is given to this man for 101. a-year. He contracted for it at that rent, and he pounds per an. paid that rent to his landlord for it. It was a real and bona fide taking a lord paying ienement of that yearly value.

parish taxes, is a Rer v. St. Paul's, Deptford, 13 East, 320. Richard Rice was removed tenement of the

good taking of a from St Paul's, Deptford, to Greenwich. Order quashed. Case: The proper value. pauper, at Christmas, 1807, rented a tenement of E. Burford, in Greenwich, Settling for forty and resided upon it more than forty days, under an agreement that he should days upon a tenepay 101. by the year to Burford for the tenement, that Burford should pay yearly rent of ten all taxes, rates, and charges whatsoever, which he did. If the taxes, rates, pounds, the land and charges usually deemed tenant's taxes, are to be deducted from the 101., and taxes, will which the tenant agreed to pay to the landlord, the tenement was not of the confer a settleanuual value of 101.; but if those taxes are not to be deducted, the tenement

ment upon the was of the value of 101. This case was expressly brought to reverse Rer v. Framlingham.-Lord Ellenborough, C. J. If we were sitting to hear that case argued, the argument might have weight; but it having been settled nearly forty years ago, that the rent reserved (all fraud apart) is to be taken as the criterion of the value of the tenement, without reference to the payment of the rates and taxes by the landlord, we are not now at liberty to disturb that decision upon any speculative opinion. The tenant may be said to obtain credit for a tenement, in one sense, of the yearly value of 101., and I cannot say that the former decision is so directly against the words of the act as necessarily to be wrong.–Grose, J. It is better stare decisis.- Le Blanc, J. If we were to decide against the former case, it would let in the deduction from the amount of the rent reserved of every payment to be made by the landlord, which might have been thrown upon the tenant. The rule being settled otherwise, it is better to abide by it.— Bayley, J., concurred. Order of sessions quashed.

Rex v. Hellingly, 10 East, 41. Removal from Hellingly to Brighton ; If tenement be quashed. Case: The pauper's husband hired a house at Brighton by the worth less than week, paying four shillings a-week for the same, which house he so con- annum, it let by tinued to occupy and sleep in. The house so hired and occupied by him is the year, it is not at all times of the year of the value of 48. a-week if taken by the week; but produce more is not of the value of 10l. per annum if taken by the year.-By Lord Ellen- than that sum borough, C. J. The words of the statute enable the justices to remove any

when let by the person who “shall come to settle in any tenement under the yearly value of 10l.;" that is, upon a tenement, the value of which is to be estimated by its annual value, to be let by the year, at the time of the party's coming to settle

It need not, in fact, be let for a whole year; it may be let only by the week or the day. But those lettings are only media for ascertaining the yearly value, if nothing appear to the contrary. But when it is expressly found, that the tenement is not of the value of iol. a-year, to be taken by the year, it is impossible for any reasoning to make the matter more clear. "The statute, speaking of yearly value, means the value of the tenement to be let by the year.-Le Blanc, I. A settlement may be gained by the taking of a tenement for less than a year, if it is of an aliquot value which would amount to 101. a-year. But where that has been decided, it did not appear that the estimated value depended on the mode of letting by the week or other period shorter than a year. But the letting at so much a-week was merely a criterion of the yearly value. Here the value of 101. within the year, depended on the taking being for a shorter period than a year. No person would have paid that yearly value for it. If this would confer a settlement, it would he next contended that a field, which nobody would take at 101. a-year, if it could be let out by the tenant for one night (which he might do to drovers of cattle on the road) at that rate, would confer a settlement. I am not disposed VOL. IV.



upon it.


12. The value, &c.

Seventhly, to extend the words of the act further than the cases have already gone.Of settlement Bayley, J. The question was, whether the value of this tenement be 10l. aby renting a year ? To ascertain that, the only fair criterion is, whether it would let, at

a single letting, without further trouble, for that sum. Ifit could be so let, 11. The value,

the landlord might reside at a distance; but if it is to be let weekly, he must &c.

either reside on the spot and have additional trouble in letting it, or he must employ somebody, and pay him ; in either case, part of the 101. obtained within the year by weekly lettings, would go, either to compensate himself for his trouble, or in defraying the expence of his agent, besides the risk of not being able to let it for three weeks in the course of the year, in which case the actual rent would be reduced under 101. The statute, then, speaking of yearly value, and the question being whether the tenement were worth 101. a-year by the single letting, without further trouble, and that being negatived, no settlement was gained. Order of sessions confirmed.

12. The Value under 59 Geo. III. c. 50, and 6 Geo. IV. c. 57.(a) These statutes are similar in this respect, that both require that the tenement should be bonâ fide hired or rented, at and for the sum of 101. a-tear at the least: and these statutes put an end to the too frequent perjuries and expensive litigations relative to the actual annual value of the premises.

By the latter of the two acts it is provided, that it shall not be necessary to prove the actual value of such tenement (ante, 523); it will, consequently

, suffice to establish that it was bonâ fide rented at 101. a-year, and that the premises were actually occupied for a year, and the rent actually paid (ante, 523); and it will be no answer to prove that the premises were not of the

yearly value of 101. If the rent is ten Rex v. Ashfield-cum-Thorpe, 9 B. & C.939. Order of removal of W. Miller

, pounds, the real from Snape to Ashfield-cum-Thorpe, confirmed. Case: The pauper,

after value is immate

the passing of 59 Geo. III. c. 50, and before that of 6 Geo. IV. c. 57, bond fide hired a house and land for one year in Snape, at a rent exceeding lol. and held, occupied, and paid the rent, for more than one year; though at the time the value of the holding and occupation was under 101.Bayley, J; The statute, 59 Geo. III. c. 50, requires that the tenement be bona fide hired at and for the sum of 101. a-year. It seems to me that by that statute the actual value is immaterial, provided the tenement be bona fide hired at the specified rent. The provision “that it shall not be necessary

the actual value of the tenement,” was introduced into the 6 Geo. IV. c. 57, for greater caution.Littledale, J., concurred.—Parke, J. One fertile source of those disputes and controversies, (mentioned in the recital of the 59 Geo. III. c. 50,) was the necessity of proving the value of the tenement; and that statute, in order to prevent litigation, requires that the tenement shall be bona fide hired at the sum of 101. a-year. Generally speaking, the rent agreed upon between the landlord and tenant is the best criterion of value, and I think the legislature meant to dispense with any other proof of value

, If the tenement hired turns out to be of much less annual value than 10., that would be evidence to shew that it was not bonâ fide hired at that sum. But if it be bonâ fide hired at that sum, I think that is sufficient. That being so, the pauper gained a settlement in Snape. Order of sessions quashed. 13. The Rent must have been actually paid under 59 Geo. III. c. 50; and

6 Geo. IV. c. 57. (a) 13. The rent, &c. The actual payment of any rent for the purpose of gaining a settlement was first rendered necessary by 59 Geo. III. c. 50, (ante, 523.) The 6 Geo. IV

. c. 57, (ante, 524,) contains a similar, though less extensive provision. By the former statute, the rent, whatever the amount, must be paid for the term of one whole year at the least, by the person hiring the same.

These latter words are omitted in 6 Geo. IV. c.57; and, therefore, it is now sufficient whether it be paid by the person hiring or by any other person. (6)


to prore

(a) See division of the subject, ante, 520.

9 B. & C. 183, post, 576.

[merged small][ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »