Seventhly, Of settlement by renting a tenement. 11. The value, &c. improved value could not have been considered.-Lord Ellenborough, C. J. Seventhly, Of settlement by renting a tenement. Value increased during a lease years, not to be regarded. for ninety-nine arises, not out of any act done by the tenant, but from the act of the landlord stipulated for before entry, and done in pursuance of that contract. What is done by the landlord under such circumstances may, I think, fairly be considered as referable to the time of entry. If the Court were tied down 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. & S. 54. Order of removal of Sarah Jesson from Aston to Hales Owen, quashed. Case: The pauper was the widow of T. Jesson, junior, son of T. Jesson, elder, who, in 1800, took land in Hales Owen for ninety-nine years, at 21. 2s. a year, and built on it two houses, each of the value of 5l. 5s. a year. When the first was finished, he went to live in it; and before the other was built, he let it for 5l. 5s. 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 bound, 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 10l., 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 this, that where a party comes into a parish with a sufficient credit to acquire the taking of a tenement of 101. a year, this shall entitle him to reside irremovably. Bayley, J. The value of the tenement must be taken, as of 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 47. a year, which, during his occupation, became of the value of 157. 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, quashed. Case: The pauper's husband (P. Allam) hired a house in Whitechapel at 81. 8s. per annum, and lived in it till his death; he also hired a room in a victualling house in W., at 3s. a week, to be made use of, and which was used as an office or place for the justices to meet and transact the parish and other public business. The room was furnished with chairs and tables, and the landlord was to find firing. And the landlord was to have the use 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 10l. a year. Order quashed. Rex v. Londonthorpe, 6 T. R. 377. John Ingram took a tenement of 61. a year, and rented a piece of waste ground at the yearly rent of 10s. 6d., on which he had the privilege of building a post windmill. This he did at the expence of 1204., and worked it for three quarters of a year, but rented the ground for two years and a half, the greater part of which time the mill was standing. The mill was constructed on cross traces, laid upon brick pillars, The principle is, that the person has credit to take a tenement of ten pounds, value. A furnished room with fire was sessions did not find the value of tinct from that taken, and the the furniture dis of the tenement: Held, a sufficient tenement. If a chattel (as a placed upon land post-windmill) be by the tenant, its value cannot be of the land. added to the rent Seventhly, Of settlement by renting a tenement. 11. The value, &c. Landlord's fix tures, which are hold, may be taken into the valuation of a ten pound tenement, though without them the tenement would not be of sufficient value to gain a settlement. but not attached or fixed thereto, which is the usual mode of building mills of that nature. The mill was considered as the property of the tenant. He 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 6l. The pauper sold 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 10l. a year, will confer a settlement; a præcipe 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 colliery. 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 himself, 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 as, 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. & C. 686; 7 D. & R. 178; 3 D. & R. parcel of the free- Mag. Ca. 378. Mary Wilson removed from Saint Mary, Canterbury, to St. Dunstan. Order confirmed. Case: The pauper's husband, on the 23rd of April, 1823, went to live in a house in St. Dunstan, at the yearly rent of 101.; he had not occupied it for a year, but he had been rated for the house in that parish, and had paid the assessment for one quarter; one 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 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 payment 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 to 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. 10s., and without them, about 6l. per annum. Il 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 small in amount, is to be made in respect of these articles, the tenement would not be of the annual value of 10l., from whence I 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 landlord 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 v. Ingleby, B. & A. 625, and Colegrave v. Dias Santos, 2 B. & C. 76, articles savoring less of the realty, were held to be fixtures and parcel of the freehold. Rer v. Framlingham, Burr. S. C. 748; 2 Bott, 201. S. Churchyard contracted with S. Hayle, to hire of him a public-house, &c., at the rent of 10!. per annum, Hayle to pay all parish rates and charges.-By Lord Mansfield, C. J., and the Court. This was a good taking of a lease of a tenement of the yearly value of 10., within the intention and meaning of the act of parliament. It turns upon the credit given the person; now here, credit is given to this man for 101. a-year. He contracted for it at that rent, and he paid that rent to his landlord for it. It was a real and bonâ fide taking a tenement of that yearly value. Rer v. St. Paul's, Deptford, 13 East, 320. Richard Rice was removed from St Paul's, Deptford, to Greenwich. Order quashed. Case: The pauper, at Christmas, 1807, rented a tenement of E. Burford, in Greenwich, and resided upon it more than forty days, under an agreement that he should pay 107. by the year to Burford for the tenement, that Burford should pay all taxes, rates, and charges whatsoever, which he did. If the taxes, rates, and charges usually deemed tenant's taxes, are to be deducted from the 10., which the tenant agreed to pay to the landlord, the tenement was not of the anuual value of 107.; but if those taxes are not to be deducted, the tenement 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; quashed. Case: The pauper's husband hired a house at Brighton by the week, paying four shillings a-week for the same, which house he so continued to occupy and sleep in. The house so hired and occupied by him is at all times of the year of the value of 4s. a-week if taken by the week; but is not of the value of 101. per annum if taken by the year.-By Lord Ellenborough, C. J. The words of the statute enable the justices to remove any person who "shall come to settle in any tenement under the yearly value of 10.;" 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 upon it. 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 10l. 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, J. 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 10l. 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 10l. 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 be next contended that a field, which nobody would take at 10l. 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. 0 0 If tenement be worth less than annum, if let by the year, it is not produce more than that sum ten pounds per sufficient that it when let by the week. Seventhly, Of settlement by renting a tenement. 11. The value, &c. 12. The value, &c. If the rent is ten pounds, the real value is immaterial. 13. The rent, &c. to extend the words of the act further than the cases have already gone.Bayley, J. The question was, whether the value of this tenement be 10l. ayear? To ascertain that, the only fair criterion is, whether it would let, at a single letting, without further trouble, for that sum. If it could be so let, the landlord might reside at a distance; but if it is to be let weekly, he must 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 107. 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 10l. a-year 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 10l. 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 107. the Rex v. Ashfield-cum-Thorpe, 9 B. & C. 939. Order of removal of W. Miller, from Snape to Ashfield-cum-Thorpe, confirmed. Case: The after pauper, 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 10. 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 10l.—Bayley, J. The statute, 59 Geo. III. c. 50, requires that the tenement be bonâ fide hired at and for the sum of 10l. 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 to prove 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 bona 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) 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. (b) (a) See division of the subject, ante, 520. 9 B. & C. 183, post, 576. (b) See Rex v. Ditcheat, |