Sivut kuvina


Webb v. Cooke,

314 Woodford v. Lilburn, 263
Webb's Case,
7 Wood's Case,

Wennall v. Adney, 156. 439 Wooley v. Hunter Blewet, 115
West v. Andrews, 386 Wooley v. Whitby, 482
Weston v. Kirton,

Weston Rivers v. St. Peter's,
206. 218. 488. 594. 601

Wilde v. Clarkson, 336
Wilde v. Griffin,
320 Yarpole,

616, 617
Wilson v. Waller, 484 York (Duke of ) v. Marsham,
Winton v. Barnard, 939





&c. &c. &c.


Of Settlement upon a Tenement of ten Pounds a Year Value.

Sect. I.

Division of the Subject. Prior to 59 Geo. III. c. 50. (1) this kind of settlement Statute 15 & depended altogether upon 13 & 14 Car. II. which confines 14 Car. II. the power of removal to cases where persons settle in any tenement, under the yearly value of ten pounds." (2)

C. 12.

6 come to

(1) This act has made considerable alterations in this head of settlement law, but as it is only prospective in its operation, and is for some reason or other, at least in terms, confined to England; the consider. ation of the law as it stood before that statute passed, cannot be omitted in a treatise like this. The law is therefore in general stated as it was apprehended to be anterior to that act. The limitations introduced by it, and the construction it has judicially received, will be distinctly noticed.

(2) See chap. xvi. vol. i. This species of settlement, as also that by estate, are rather cases excepted out of this statute than regulated by it.

[blocks in formation]

Expositions of the word.

The act speaks of the annual value, without mention of the inhabitant's estate or interest, and at first view seems to require, that all tenements to prevent the occupier's removal should be of the yearly value of ten pounds, without reference to the nature or manner of acquiring the estate, whether freehold, copyhold, leasehold, or a minor interest.


The judges entertained originally some doubt, whether 1. To freeholds.

this was not the true construction (1). It has, however,

been long settled, that where the inhabitant has a free2. Copyhold. hold (2) or copyhold (3) interest, the yearly value of the

tenement is immaterial. (4)

3. Leaseholds.

And it is so likewise, where a leasehold interest devolves upon the party by the operation of law (5). The rule extends to leaseholds, purchased for a valuable consideration, For it is laid down by Lord Chief Justice Lee, that “ before 9 G. I. c. 7. every body that came into a parish, and made any pirchase whatever, was irremoveable (6).” It is likewise observed by Mr. Justice Dennison, that in Mursley v. Grandborough, it was holden by Lord Chief Justice Pratt, Mr. Justice Eyre, and Mr. Justice Fortes

(1) Rex v. Stanmore, Skin. 268.
(2) See cases cited, vol. i. p. 254. post, chap. xxiv.

(3) Harrow v. Edgeware, fol. 257. Rex v. Burcleer, 1 Str. 163., where the pauper was certificated.

(4) As to the effect of 9 G. I. c.7. s. 6. upon the value of estates acquired by purchase, see post, chap. xxiv.

(5) Mursley v. Grandborough, i Str. 97. Burcleer v. Eastwoodhay, supra (3), and the cases cited post, chap. xxiv. These cases seem excepted from 13 & 14 Car. II. not only because the preamble of the statute refers only to persons in a state of vagrancy, which such inhabitants are not, but also, because the words “ coping to settle,” are used in the enacting part, which seems to imply, that it must be the party's voluntary act, with the intention of settling himself. See the opinion of the judges; and particularly Lee J., Rex v. Sundrish, Burr. S.C. 7. Rex v. Tedford, Ib. 57.; of Aston J., Rex v. Uttoxeler, Burr. S.C. 538.; of Grose J., Rex. v. Stone, 6 Term Rep. 295.

(6) Rex v. Standsfield, Burr. S. C. 210.; case of certificated person; and see Rex v. St. Mary's, Whitechapel. Ib. 55.

cue, “ that any person who has an estate of freehold, copyhold, or for years, by act of law, (as descent, marriage, executor, administrator,) or purchase, may dwell upon it as his own, and is not removable, if he continues forty days; though under 10l. per annum.: but he must abide forty days in order to gain a settlement. And notice is not necessary, because he is not removable from it. But Powys held contra, as to a term for years, under 10l. per annum value.” (1)

And in a very recent case, Mr. Justice Lawrence remarks, that the justice's power to remove is founded on 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 12., which extends to any person who shall come to settle in any tenement under the yearly value of 10L.; and these words never having been deemed to relate to persons living on their own estates, whether acquired by purchase or otherwise, or at whatever value; it followed, that every person residing irremovably for forty days in that parish where his own property was, gained a settlement. (2)

There are two kinds of estates, therefore, in which the Annual value, annual value of the tenement is immaterial.

when immatea rial.

Ist, Freehold, or copyhold.

2nd, Leasehold interests, “ which devolve upon the party by operation of law (3),” or are acquired by purchase. (4)

The present species of settlement arises from the pos- This settlesession of a tenement of the annual value of 101. when ment extends

(1) Rex v. West Shefford, Burr. S. C. 310.; and a note by Sir James Burrow, confirming the accuracy of Mr. J. Dennison's note.

(2) Rex v. Martley, 5 East, 44.
(5) See the opinion of Lord Kenyon C.J., Rex v. Stone, ante, 2.(5).

(4) Semb. Rex v. Standsfield, ante, 2. (6). As to the meaning of the word purchase, see post, chap. xxiv. But see the opinion of Lord Ellenborough C.J., Rex v. Bowness, 4 M. & S. 210. and post, 5. (3).


to other cases obtained by some other than the preceding means.

It is than renting a

generally considered as acquired by renting a tenement of the yearly value of 101. (1), not only because the occupation is usually under a contract to pay rent, and the credit given to the tenant and his ability to pay 10l. per annum, have been deemed reasons for this exception in the statute, and the ground of the settlement (2): but also perhaps from the 9 & 10 W. III. c. 30. having in terms mentioned

the taking a lease of a tenement of that value as necessary To lawful

towards obtaining a settlement, by a person residing under possessions when no rent a certificate (3). But this opinion is not strictly accurate. paid.

Lawful possession of a tenement, of sufficient value, when absolute and independent, with some interest therein which is sufficiently permanent to denote a coming to settle, according to the words of 13 & 14 Car. II., confers a settlement, although the occupier is exempt from paying rent. (4)

It seems therefore to include cases of voluntary donation, where the occupier has not an interest of sufficient permanency to entitle him to acquire a settlement by estate. (5)

Land given to

His brother gave the pauper a close, in the following a pauper as tenant at will. manner: “ I will give you a close in the parish of A.,

containing about four acres, to enjoy as long as I please,

(1) See Rex v. Stanmore, ante (1). Harrow v. Edgware, ante, 2.(3). South Sydenham v. Lamerton, 2 Bott, 128. Pl. 171. post, sect. ii. The makers of 9 & 10 W. III. c. 11. seem to have considered it in this light when they enacted, that no person coming into a parish under a certificate shall gain a settlement there, by any act whatever, “unless he or

they shall really and bonâ fide take a lease of a tenement of the value “ of 10l.” &c. This is considered as referring to the annual, and not the absolute value of the tenement, in conformity to 13 & 14 Car. II. See the words of Lord Mansfield C. J., Rex v. Cold Ashton, Burr. S.C. 450. and the cases cited hereafter.

(2) Kinver v. Stone, 1 Str. 678. post, 9. (1), and the cases hereafter cited.

(3) See supra (1).

(4) See post, sect. iv. This distinction purposely excludes the consideration of leasehold interests purchased for less than 30l. and of a less annual value than 10l., for which see post, chap. xxiv.

(5) See the opinion of Bayley J., Rex v. Lakenheath, 1 B. & C. 534.

« EdellinenJatka »