Extinguishment of heriots. parcel of the land to another, each of them is chargeable to the lord with a heriot, for it is entire; and if the tenant purchase the land again, yet if the lord were seised of the heriot by another man, he shall have of him, the tenant, for each portion a heriot (x). It was said by the court, this is the case, "not of the creation of a tenancy in common, but of a severance of the estate into distinct parcels, and the alienation of one of those parcels of his land to others" (y). It is said (2) to be an unsettled point whether, in a case where there has been an actual severance and division of a tenement into distinct and separate parcels, so as to give to separate holders separate properties in severalty, the multiplication of heriots continues after the reunion of the same land in one person; and in Holloway v. Berkeley (a) the judges abstained from saying anything on that point. But in a recent case(b), where the tenements in respect of which the heriots were claimed were seven, having originally been only five, of which two had been divided and the several parts had passed into different hands, but the whole had become reunited in one owner, in respect of whom the heriots were claimed, it was admitted, on the part of the lord of the manor, on the authority of Garland v. Jekyll (c), that only five heriots could be claimed. If a heriot be due by the custom of the manor upon the death of the tenant, and the lord purchases part of the tenement, such purchase will not extinguish the lord's right to a heriot; for the tenant, on account of the residue, is still within the lord's homage (d), and (x) Fitz. Abr. tit. Heriot, pl. 1; Com. Dig. Cop. R. 21, 23. (y) Holloway v. Berkeley, 6 B. & C. 2. (z) See 2 Saund. R. 168 c, 5th ed., n. (a) 6 B. & C. 15. (b) Abington v. Lipscomb, 1 Q. B. 776; ante, p. 125. (c) 2 Bing. 273, ante, p. 131. (d) 8 Rep. 106 b; 2 Brownl. 296. a tenant of his manor; and consequently upon his death, as upon the death of every other tenant of the manor, the lord is entitled to a heriot. If by the custom of a manor every copyholder upon his alienation and surrender is to pay a heriot to the lord, and a copyholder surrender part of his copyhold to one, and part to another, and retain part in his own hand, the heriots in this case shall be multiplied; and as to the first alienation, the heriot shall be paid by the copyholder who aliened, because he still continued tenant to the lord. So upon the alienation of every other tenant toties quoties, for otherwise it might be in the power of the copyholder entirely to defeat the lord of the heriots (e). ; It is clear that heriot service would be extinguished by the lands uniting with the manor, either by purchase or escheat, as it is a service annexed to the land but it would seem that in the case of heriot custom, if the lord regranted the lands, they would be still liable to a heriot, although it be entire and not annual (f). The lord's right to a heriot is not defeated by a will (g). All fraudulent gifts and deeds made to defraud the lord of heriots and reliefs are void, and the parties making them are liable to forfeit the whole value of the goods and chattels assigned, one moiety to the crown and the other to the party aggrieved (h). But the disposition must be proved to be made with the intent to defraud the lord, or he cannot avail himself of that statute (i). (e) Snag v. Fox, Palm. 342; Chapman v. Pendleton, 2 Brownl. 293; 2 Watk. Cop. 118, 4th ed.; Bac. Abr. Heriot (B). (f) 1 Scriv. Cop. 386, 4th ed.; 2 Watk. Cop. 122-124, 4th ed. (g) Co. Litt. 185 b. (h) 13 Eliz. c. 5, ss. 2, 3. (i) Tyrer v. Littleton, 2 Brownl. 187; 10 Rep. 56 a; see Dyer, 351 b; Creswell v. Cook, 2 Leon. 8; Lex Man. 156, 2nd ed. SECT. III. OF RELIEFS. The proper relief is the ancient relief, which was due to the lord at or before the entry of the heir or new tenant into the land. This was anciently paid in money, and was not so properly a service as a perquisite or incident to the feudal tenure. It arose from this, that whilst the feud was temporary and precarious, the lords used upon the death of the tenant, and before the heir was admitted into the feud, to oblige the heir to pay a sum of money. This after the feud was established and made perpetual constituted part of the feudal profits, the tenants easily consenting to it upon the establishment of the feud (k). Reliefs, though not services strictly, are an incident of tenure for which the lord may distrain (1). But if a relief is not existing by reason of tenure, but by custom, the lord cannot distrain as of course; but to establish his right to distrain, must show a custom of distress as well as a custom of relief (m). The relief incident to tenure as to free socage lands was one year's rent, but the customary relief might be more or less (n). Relief, though for the most part incident to freehold tenure, must, when it occurs in copyholds, be taken to be in the nature of a fine; and a relief may be due from copyhold tenants by custom on descent and also on alienation (o). (k) Gilb. on Distr. 7, 4th ed.; Co. Litt. 83 a; 3 Bulstr. 323. (1) Gilb. Distr. 7; Co. Litt. 83 a. (m) Hungerford v. Haverland, 3 Bulstr. 323; Sir W. Jones, 132; Mayor of Basingstoke v. Bolton, 1 Drew. 291. (n) 1 Drew. 293, 294; 1 Watk. Cop. 288, 4th ed. (0) Com. Dig. Cop. (K. 11); White v. Cuddon, 8 Cl. & Fin. 783. SECT. IV. OF RENTS, FEALTY AND SUIT OF COURT. kinds of The word "rents," in the Copyhold Act, 1841, in- Different cludes reliefs and services, not being service at the rents. lord's court (p). The certain and established rents of the freeholders and ancient copyholders of manors, which are of the nature of real service, are called rents of assize, because they were assized and certain, and thereby distinguished from such as are variable and uncertain (q). Those of the freeholders are also frequently called chief rents; and both sorts are indifferently denominated quit rents, because thereby the tenant goes quit and free of all other services (r). Copyhold rents are those paid by the tenants of a manor to the lord for their tenements holden by copy of court roll, and to this sort of rent distress has always been considered as incident of common right (s). After the statute Quia emptores, 18 Edw. 1, st. 1, the lord could not by any deed reserve the old services, when he conveyed away the estate in respect of which those services were due, for the tenant must hold of the superior lord. If a lord of a manor conveys property to a customary tenant reserving a rent, such rent can no longer be considered as a rent service, but a rent to be recovered according to the contract between the parties (t). (p) 4 & 5 Vict. c. 35, s. 102. (q) 2 Inst. 19. (r) 2 Bl. Comm. 43. (s) Gilb. on Dist. 5, 4th ed.; Laughter v. Humphrey, Cro. Eliz. 524. (t) Bradshaw v. Lawson, 4 T. R. 443. Limitation of time for recovery of rents. A rent originally reserved in respect of copyhold property belonging to the lord of one manor, may be lost by the lord entitled to it allowing it to be received for a long time by the lord of another manor (u). Where by great length of time it is become impossible to know out of what particular lands quit rents are issuable, the Court of Chancery, on proof of payment within a reasonable time, will make a decree for payment of the arrears of such rents, and payment of the same for the future (x). Although formerly quit rents were not within the Statute of Limitations, yet non-payment and acquiescence for thirty-seven years was held a sufficient ground to presume a release or extinguishment of the quit rent in an action for the recovery of the arrears (y). But now no person shall make an entry or distress to recover any land or rent (which includes heriots and all suits and services for which a distress may be made), but within twenty years next after the time at which the right to make such entry or distress, or to bring such action, shall have first accrued to some person through whom he claims, or if such right shall not have accrued to any person through whom he claims, then within twenty years next after the time at which the right to make such entry or distress, or to bring such action, shall have first accrued to the person making or bringing the same (z). The same act (a) defines the respective periods when the right shall be deemed to have accrued to persons having an estate in possession, in remainder, and in reversion (u) Steward v. Bridger, 2 Vern. 516. (x) Duke of Bridgewater v. Edwards, 6 Br. P. C. 368, 2nd ed. ; Cox v. Foley, 1 Vern. 359; Holder v. Chambery, 3 P. Wms. 256. (y) Eldridge v. Knott, Cowp. 214; Stackhouse v. Barnston, 10 Ves. 467. (z) 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, ss. 1, 2. |