« EdellinenJatka »
A pauper being entitled to a leasehold house, as her father's sole next of kin, demised it to a tenant, who paid her rent. She resided elsewhere in the same parish with her family, and was held to have thereby acquired a settlement. (1)
As between a mortgagor and mortgagee, it is the party Possession as who is in possession that gains the settlement, because it is between mortthe possession which decides as between them the right to mortgagee. the occupation or pernancy of the profits. (2)
It is likewise immaterial whether the party has a bene- A beneficial ficial interest in the estate: a mere trustee may acquire a terial: trustee settlement, for nobody can take the estate froin him, and it gains a settleis sufficient that he reside in the parish forty days, and cannot be removed from it. (3)
Upon the same principle a guardian in socage ac- Also aguardian quires a settlement, and also a subsequent husband in her right. (4)
The following case has also been decided :
The father of pauper's wife let his freehold cottage to Reversioner in the parish officers, and their successors for 1000 years, and lease for 1090 they took possession. In 1813, he was placed in it with years. another pauper by the parish officers, and the pauper's wife came to nurse him : he died there, and his daughter continued in the cottage, where the pauper joined her in about six weeks, and laid claim to the cottage as his wife's property. The parish officers having mislaid their conveyance, could not withstand her claim; and the pauper and her family continued to reside five years, when becoming chargeable, and the conveyance being found, they were re
(1) Rex v. Horsley, 8 East, 405. (2) Ante, 85.
(3) Per Ashhurst J., Rex v. Stone, 6 Term Rep. 295. ante 79. (3). Per Le Blanc J. Rex v. Oakley, 10 East, 491. Rex v. Wilby, 2 M. & S. 504.
(4) Rex v. Oakley, 10 East, 491. But a widow must have her dower actually assigned to entitle her to a settlement. See ante, 94. Rex v. North Weald, Bassett, post.
moved: but they were held settled, and the order removing them, was quashed. For the pauper was neither within the words, the spirit, or mischief of the provision recited in the preamble of 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 12., “ He comes not for any
of the motives the statute meant to repress, but because he has a freehold in the parish; not to prey upon the parish stock, but to live upon that of which he is a freeholder, and as to which he was warranted in concluding that he was entitled to the possession. This is not a case of fraud, nor a case in which the pauper is conscious at the time that he is taking the possession wrongfully, nor a case in which the person entitled to possession takes prompt measures to displace him; leaving such cases to be decided when they may arise, it is sufficient for us to say, that there does not appear to have been fraud or consciousness of wrong; and where no measures were taken within the forty days or afterwards, to dispute the pauper's occupation, we are of opinion, that the residence was sufficient.” (1)
A felon convict.
It has been likewise held that an attainted felon, discharged by an order of the secretary of state under the sign manual, which directed his name to be inserted in the next general pardon, having afterwards purchased a copyhold for more than 301. to which he was admitted upon surrender formally made, and whereon he resided and received the issues and profits for more than nine years without impeachment of his title, thereby acquired a settlement, which he communicated to the unemancipated part of his family. (2)
Number and As to the number and connexion of the tenants, it connexion of forms no consideration in the question of settlement; they tenants immaterial; may be tenants in co-parcenary, joint-tenants or tenants in
A tenant in common, of an estate of inheritance, may acquire a settlement (3); as also one of three co
(1) Rex v. Staplegrove, 2 B. & A. 527.
(2) Rex v. Haddenham, 15 East, 463.; and see the same at length, post. chap. xxvii.
(3) Rex v. St. Nyott's, Burr. S. C. 132.
parceners by residence in the parish (1); and as their interest is equal, it seems they may all gain settlements. (2) One of four executors was settled by residence in the parish where the premises were situated, out of which their interest accrued. So also the owner of a leasehold interest acquired a settlement, although the grantor reserved a sleepingplace (3), or although the grantee demised all the premises to another, excepting a fourth part. (4)
Neither does it make any difference, if there is no fraud, or that pauper that the pauper receives relief from another parish, during from another his residence. (5)
Of Settlement by Purchase under 9 Geo. I. c. 7.
THE 9 Geo. I. c. 7. is confined to cases of estates ac- 9 Geo. I. c. 7. quired by purchase, for which a consideration, amounting to 30l., must be bona fide paid. (6) It does not enable persons to acquire a settlement, but prohibits them from gaining one by an estate purchased under certain circumstances. This statute may be considered under three heads. 1st, To what estates it extends. 2d, How the value or consideration is to be computed. 3d, What amounts to a bona fide payment of the consideration,
The purchaser is irremoveable during the time of his Purchasers uninhabiting the purchased premises; but as his settlement is, der 30l. irre
movable. as it were, only temporary, no derivative one results from it
(1) Rex v. Dorstone, 1 East, 296.
to children, nor is that previously possessed by the parent thereby extinguished. (1)
Construction of 9 Geo. I.
A learned judge has delivered it as his opinion, that under this act, “ There must be either an estate or an interest purchased, and by the latter words is to be understood a definite interest, for which the party contracts at the time of making the contract. If the question were res integra, I should be disposed to hold, that the legislature meant a legal interest only. It has been decided, however, that a cestui que trust has a sufficient interest in land to gain a settlement under this statute ; and I feel bound to adhere to their decisions." (2)
To what estates 9Geo.l. extends.
It has been already shewn, that the act extends only to cases where the party acquires an estate or interest in lands or tenements for a pecuniary consideration. (3)
Nature of estate immaterial.
The nature and quality of the estate is of no signification. It may be freehold, copyhold, or leasehold. The consideration is usually paid at the time when the interest is acquired; but it may be made in the shape of an annual reservation, the judges seeming inclined to consider such a case within the statute, at least for the purpose of excluding the party from a settlement.
Grant by lord W. B. was certificated in the parish of Havant. On of manor,
20th October, 1748, J. M., lord of the manor of H., “ fine, 18., heriot, is. quit- granted by copy of court-roll “ to W. B. and his heirs, rent, 1s.” Pre- one parcel of the waste ground, called the Gravel-pit, mises afterwards worth parcel of the manor, and within the parish of H.” then of 1001.; this a
the value of thirty or forty shillings. W. B., by virtue of purchase within the act, and the grant, entered on the premises, (which did not appear confers no to have been previously granted by copy of court-roll)
built a house, and mortgaged the premises for 1001. The mortgagee sold the premises in 1763; and on the death of
(1) Verba Bayley J., Rex v. Geddington, 2 B. & C. 183.
(2) Rex v. Salford, Burr. S. C. 516. 1 Black. Rep. 433, and see post.
(3) Ante, 74.
W. B., his heir at law sold the equity of redemption to the purchaser. It appeared by the evidence of the steward of the manor, that M., the lord, was in the habit of making grants of such parcels of the waste, but never without a pecuniary consideration. No evidence was given, whether any pecuniary consideration was given for this grant, but it appeared, by a copy of the court-roll, read by consent in the Court of King's Bench, that W. B. was admitted in the year 1748, on the lord's grant, to one parcel of land, called the Gravel Land; and in the copy of his admission were these words — “fine one shilling, heriot one shilling, quit-rent one shilling;” and in the margin of all the copies was inserted, “ fine one shilling.” The court decided that it was a purchase within the statute, and that W. B. acquired no settlement. Per Ashhurst J. A purchase is the acquisition of something for an equivalent. It is a quid pro quo. If there be a valuable consideration, it is a purchase in the legal sense, and it makes no difference whether it come in the form of a present payment, or in any other way. Here there appears to be a quid pro quo, from the state of the case, and from the entries in the lord's court, which have been read: for there was a fine upon admission, and there was a valuable reservation of a heriot and rent; and that it is a sufficient foundation for a purchase ; and there having been a consideration, it cannot be called a voluntary gift. (1)
So, where the dean and chapter had granted a lease for Grant of a new lives to the pauper's grandfather, and after the expiration lease, on pay
ment of two of the lease, the dean and chapter, on the pauper's appli- guineas. cation, and on payment by him of a sum of two guineas, granted a new lease of the premises in question at a new rent of 1s., to hold to the pauper, his heirs, and assigns, for three lives, Lord Ellenborough C. J. observed, that
(1) Rex v. Warblington, i Term Rep. 241. Rex v. Hornchurch, 2 B. & A.189. S.P.