« EdellinenJatka »
remove at pleasure. He accordingly built a post windmill upon that ground, at the expence of 1201., and worked it for about three quarters of a year, but rented the ground for two years and a half, the greatest part of which time the mill was standing thereon. The mill was constructed upon cross traces, laid upon brick pillars, but not attached or fixed thereto, which is the usual mode of building mills of that nature. And the mill was considered as the property of the tenant.
He let it for a quarter of a year, and afterwards sold it as a chattel interest, and it was taken away by the purchaser, without any interruption of the landlord ; and no rates were ever paid or demanded for it. Lord Kenyon, C. J. There is no doubt that the taking of a windmill attached to the ground, of the value 101. 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 a land-sale colliery. But this windmill, as described in this 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. (1)
The pauper rented under a verbal agreement, from A dairy, where Lady-day till six weeks after Michaelmas, two cows, at less than 101. the rate of five shillings a cow per week, of J.G., who was but that of the tenant and occupier of lands in M. It was agreed, that taking which
included cows J. G. should feed and support them, and depasture them, more. and no other cattle, upon certain lands therein specified. “But the said lands on which the cows were so depastured, were not of the annual value of 101. He gained no settlement, not having rented a tenement of 101. a-year value. For the principle upon which the renting dairies has been held to confer a settlement is, that it is a contract for a certain interest in the land, to be enjoyed in a particular manner;
(1) Rex v. Londonthorpe, 6 Term Rep. 377.
and that alone constitutes it the taking of a tenement. But the value of the cows was never taken into consideration, as forming part of the value of the tenement. (1)
But things But it is otherwise where the value of the land is raised connected with land, for by the amount of things erected thereon (2), or which are part of the
so connected with the land, as to fall (in legal contemplation) tenement's value.
within the description of a tenement. (3)
Land-sale col. liery, &c.
Thus, in the case of the land-sale colliery (4), such erections as were attached to the mine, might be considered as constituting part of the value of the tenement (5), but personal chattels merely leased with the land would not. (6)
Rabbits in a warren,
Likewise a thing, moveable in its nature, may be attached to a tenement as an accessary (7), so as to constitute a part thereof, and go to the heir as a member of the inheritance; in which case, the annual value of such things are part of the yearly worth of the tenement, and to be estimated as such in questions of settlement. Thus, although cows fed on particular lands are not considered as increasing the value of the tenement, i.e. the produce of the land, yet rabbits in a warren (8), the fish of a fishery (9), and, upon the same principle, doves in a dove-cot (10), which are attached to the tenement, and would go to the heir as part of it, are to be considered as augmenting its' value.
(1) Rex v. Minworth, 2 East, 198.
(4) Rex v. North Bedburn, post, 37.(3). But it appears from Mr. Caldecott's report, that the annual value of the mine, distinct from the extra value of the moveables, as estimated in a schedule, exceeded 101.
(5) Ut videtur per Le Blanc J. Rex v. Minworth, 2 East, 201.
(8) Rex v. Piddletrentithe, ante 9. (5), per Lawrence J. Rex v. Minworth, 2 East, 201. Co. Lit. n. 8. a.
(9) Per Lawrence J. Rex v. Minworth, supra (1).
Where the sessions find, that the amount of the rent When sessions paid is more than 10l. per annum, the court will conclude, value of the that the tenement is of that value, although it is stated, demisedmovethat some personal chattels are likewise demised, unless ables. the value at which they are rented is expressly stated. (1) As where furniture and firing were found for a room let by the week (2), where a stock of horses, gins, ropes, and other things necessary for working a land-sae colliery, were let with it (3); the benefit derived from occupying these moveables was not considered as reducing the worth of the tenement below 101., nothing being found as to their value.
Where a tenement is taken or occupied jointly by two, Value where and is of the value of 201. a-year, both may gain a settle- a joint occu
pation. ment, for the moiety occupied by each is of the value of 101. per annum. (4)
But where a tenement is occupied by two jointly, and is under 201. a-year in value, neither can acquire one; and this not only where the tenants, after taking the farm jointly, pay their rents severally, divide the produce of the land between them, and stint their pastures equally, by their several flocks (5); but also, where they jointly hire and occupy the house and land, and jointly till and sow it, and jointly pay their rent. (6) 66 If the law should be other
(1) Per Buller J. Rex v. Whitechapel, 2 Bott, 102. Pl. 146.
(6) Marden v. Barham, Burr. S. C. 311. The principle is the same if there is a joint occupation by three or more, and the tenement does not yield a rateable proportion of 10l. annual value for each; none acquire settlements. For, as the shares are equal, none occupy to the yearly worth of 101. The words of the act are, “ If any person or per"sons do come to settle in any tenement,” &c. So that this is perhaps the only case in which the court has not gone beyond the literal interpretation of the statute in favour of settlements. As the law now stands, if two take and occupy a tenement jointly, of the annual value of 161.
wise, the inconveniences arising from it would be intolerable; for, if forty persons, for the same purpose, were to rent a tenement of this value, each of them would be entitled to a settlement; the manifest design of the statute would be thereby eluded, and the parishes would be loaded with poor.” (1)
Of the value paying rent immaterial.
Of the Occupation, or coming to settle upon a Tenement.
a settlement is claimed by a tenement of 101. per annum value, nothing further is required as to the occupation, than that the party hold possession as tenant by lawful means. “ The sessions have no occasion to go into the title of the lessor at all (2),” nor into the conditions
This constitutes the chief distinction between settlements which may be gained by occupying a tenement of 101. a-year, and those to be acquired by estate. The value of the tenement is alone material where the annual value is 101. nothing else being necessary, except that the occupier holds by a lawful title to the possession. But where a settlement is claimed by estate, the interest or title of the party is every thing, and the value of the tenement of no importance to the question of settlement, except in cases regulated by 9 Geo. I. c. 7.
The ability to pay 101. a-year, and the credit obtained, are stated in some cases as the reasons why persons occupying a tenement worth 10l. annually were excepted from
neither gains a settlement. But if one take it, and underlet to the other, part of the premises to the value of 10l. a.year, even as tenant at will, both may acquire settlements. See the opinion of Aston J.Rex v. Newnham, post. Llandverras v. Northop, ante. See also Rex v. South Bemfleet, 1 M. & S. 153. ante, 29.
(1) Per Eyre C. J. and Reeve J. Croft v. Gainsford, ante, 37.(5). (2) Per Buller J. Rex v. Old Alresford, ante, 10. (1).
the statute. But these considerations have been deter-
The pauper's brother, commiserating the pauper's family, Premises given
without rent. gave him a close, “ to enjoy as long as I please, and to be taken when I please, and you shall pay nothing for it.” The pauper enjoyed the close three years, the brother paying the taxes, the tillage was done by his horses and servants, the crops usually sown with his corn, and the harvest got in by his servants, and delivered by them to the pauper. The pauper's cattle continued exclusively on the land, except when the brother's cattle were put there, for the purpose of ploughing and sowing it. This occupation conferred a settlement under the statute. (2)
So did the occupation of part of a house belonging to a Occupation of near relation, who permitted the pauper to live in it rent premises, givfree. The house consisted of two separate tenements, one the dung. of which the pauper occupied with his family, together with a barn, stable, and yard appurtenant. He never paid any rent to his relation in respect of them, but the relation had all the dung and manure made by the pauper's cattle, and spread it upon his own lands, in an adjoining parish. This person occupied a tenement within the statute. Per Lord Kenyon, C. J. I am not prepared to say, that his relation could have turned him out of possession upon a day's notice. And though it is stated in the case, that the panper paid no rent in money, it appears that there was an equivalent. The pauper brought all the dung and manure from his other tenements, and this relation had the benefit of it. Per Lawrence J. I should
(1) Per Parker C.J. South Sydenham v. Lamerton. 1 Str. 57. Per Lawrence J. post, 43.
(2) Rex v. Fillongley, 1 T. R. 458. ante, 5.(1). Per Bayley J. Rex e. Bardwell, 2 B. & C. 161. ante.