Sidebilder
PDF

127 Landlord and Tenant. DIGEST. Landlord and Tenant. 128

governors to put in a new life. They referred the matter to the Charity Commissioners for their consent under the Charitable Trusts Amendment Act, 1855, s. 29.

The commissioners having refused their consent on the ground that the covenant was void since the lease itself was in excess of the period fixed by the statutes of Elizabeth, and an answer having been put in to a bill for specific performance of the covenant submitting the refusal of the commissioners, and that the lease was void under the statutes,

Held, that the commissioners were wrong in considering that a covenant to grant a lease entered into prior to 1855 was not equivalent to a lease granted before that date, and therefore exempt from the operation of their Act.

Held, nevertheless, that the lease for ninety-nine years was void under the statutes of Elizabeth, and that that being so, the covenant to put in a new life was void also.—Moore v. Clench, Ch.div. M.k. 169— li. R. 1 Ch. D. 447; 45 L. J. Ch. 80; 34 L. T. 13.

1. Covenant to renew to two persons on performance of covenantsCovenant to repairSubstantiality of breachCondition precedent to renewalRefusal to renew to one of two lesseesBreach of condition not to assignWaiver by receipt of rent of right to reenter on assigneeAcknowledgment of assignee's title to renewal.—A lease was granted to F. and H. for a term of seven years expiring on the 24th of June, 1875, at a rent of £65. It contained joint and several covenants by the lessees to pay rent and keep in repair; a proviso for re-entry if they or either of them should become bankrupt or should assign without licence, or for breach of covenant; a covenant by the lessor, at the expiration of the term, in case of the due performance of the covenants, to grant a fresh lease "to the said tenants, their executors or administrators, if they or either of them, their or either of their executors or administrators," should give notice of their desire to take such fresh lease; and a proviso that " the said tenants or tenant, their or his executors or administrators," should be entitled to purchase on certain conditions.

In 1869 H. without licence released his interest to F., and shortly afterwards became bankrupt. In May, 1875, F. gave notice requiring the lease to be renewed to himself atone. On the termination of the lease on the 24th of June following, all rent had been paid and accepted, but the lessor refused to comply with the notice, alleging that the property was out of repair. It was admitted by F. that repairs to the amount of £13 were requisite. On a bill by F. to compel a renewal in accordance with the notice,

Held, that the existence of a right of action in respect of the covenant to repair, when the time for renewal arrived, disentitled F. to a renewal, whether or not the want of repair were substantial; that, according to the terms of the covenant to renew, F. could not during the life of H. call for a renewal to himself alone; and that the waiver by receipt of rent of the right to re-enter in respect of the assignment was not an acknowledgment of the title of the assignee to call for a renewal.

Hare v. Barges, 5 W. R. 585, distinguished.—Finch v. Underwood, App. 657—L. R. 2 Ch.D. 310; 45 L.J. Ch. 522; 34L.T. 779.

8. Covenant to repairAssignment of reversionNoticeRe-entry for non-repair.—Breach of a covenant to repair, entitling the owner of the reversion to re-enter, may be taken advantage of by the assignee of the reversion, although the tenant has had no notice of the assignment; such notice being necessary only where the assignee seeks to re-enter for non-payment

of rent.—Scaltoch v. Harston, cp.Drv. 431—L. E. 1 C. P. D. 106 ; 45 L. J. O. P. 125 ; 34 L. T. 130.

9. Covenant to repairSuspension, of notice &j negotiation for surrender of premises unrepaired— Breach due to misleading conduct of lessorRelief h equity against forfeiture for non-repair.—A forfeiture of a lease for breach of covenant to repair on notice will be relieved against when the landlord, after giving the notice, has led the tenant to suppose that the terms of the notice will not be insisted on.

A lease of a house contained a covenant to repair on six months' notice, and the usual condition for reentry. The plaintiff (the landlord) gave six months' notice to repair on the 22nd of October, 1874. Thereupon the defendants, the tenants, suggested that the landlord should purchase their interest, and stated that they should suspend the repairs in the meantime. The plaintiff entertained the suggestion and inquired the price, which was named to him. On the 31st of December the plaintiff wrote stating that, having regard to the state of repair of the premises, the price was too high, and asking for a modified proposal. No further proposal was made by the defendants, and, although the parties were subsequently in communication on other matters relating to the property nothing further was said by either of them on the subject of the repairs or the proposed sale. On the 13th of April, 1875, the repairs not having been commenced, the plaintiff intimated his view that the notice would expire on the 22nd inst., being the expiration of the six calendar months. The repairs were at once proceeded with and were finished in June; but whilst they were in progress, and on the 28th of of April, the plaintiff brought an action of ejectment, and recovered judgment. On motion by the defendants to stay execution,

Held (reversing the decision of the Common Pleas Division), that, although the notice had not been waived, it was suspended whilst the negotiation was pending; that the negotiation was not closed by the letter of the 31st of December; that if the plaintiff intended to insist on the notice it was his duty to have warned the defendants of his intention, and that it would be inequitable not to relieve against the forfeiture.—Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Company, App. 652—L. R. 1 C. P. 120; 45 L. J. C. P. 578.

10. Covenant to use as a private houseSale by auction.—A covenant to use a house as a private house only is not broken by an auction sale on the premises of the furniture belonging to the house.—Reeves v. Cattell, Ch.div. M.r. 485.

11. Covenant impliedTitleForeshoreEviction by Crown Misrepresentation Deed set aside EstoppelCounter-claimJudicature Act, s. 24, subsection 2 ; s. 34, sub-section 2; ord. 19, r. 3.—By an indenture of lease the plaintiff "let" to the defendants certain coal mines "to hold the demised premises " for a term of sixty years. It did not appear that there was any covenant for title or for quiet enjoyment.

Held, that a covenant was implied in the words "let" and "demised" that the lessor had a good title to demise the whole of the premises therein.

To a claim for rent due under this lease, the defendants answered that part of the premises demised lay below the high-water mark of the River Dee, and were the property of the Crown, who had served the defendants with notice of that fact, and that the plaintiff had no title to demise them as he well knew at the time of the demise, whereas the defendants were in ignorance of his want of title; and they claimed damages for the misrepresentation, sad to have the said deed rectified or set aside, and for those purposes to have the action transferred to the Chan

129 Landlord and Temnt. DIGEST. Landlord and Tenant. "130

eery Division. To this statement of defence and counter-claim the plaintiff demurred generally.

Held, (1) That the defendants were not, under the circumstances alleged, estopped from setting up a want of title in the plaintiff, although they had never been evicted from the premises;

(2) That the counter-claim was good, although its amount was less than the plaintiffs claim;

(3) That an application by a defendant to set aside a deed could be entertained in any division of the High Court, and that if the facts set up would have "been sufficient in former days to cause the Court of Chancery to rectify or set aside the deed, the deed ■would be considered, for the purposes of this demurrer, to have been already rectified or set aside;

(4) That the deed could not be rectified, because the mistake of the parties was not mutual;

(5) But that, since there had been a concealment of a material fact by the plaintiff at the time of the demise, and it did not appear that the defendants had ever entered under the lease or paid rent to the plaintiff, or enjoyed any advantage or benefit from it, the defendants were entitled to have the deed set aside, either wholly or in so far as it related to the premises belonging to the Crown, and to claim damages for any loss they may have sustained by reason of the misrepresentation.

Quosre, whether a notice of the claim of the Crown to minerals lying under the bed of a public navigable river, at a time when no mine has been opened giving access to them, is not tantamount to an eviction by the Crown.—Mostyn, Baronet, v. The West Mostyn Coal and Iron Company {Limited), Cp.div. 401— L. R. 1 C. P. D. 145; 45 L. J. C. P. 401; 34 L. T. 325.

Distress

12. Appraisement.—The appraisement of goods distrained made by two sworn appraisers under 2 Will. & Mary, session 1, c. 5, is only prima facie evidence of the value of the goods.—Cook v. Corbett, App. 181. - .

13. Not selling for best price Illegal restriction on saleCovenant to consume hay, &c, on the premises demisedStatutes 1 Will. & Mary, c. 5, s. 2; 56 Geo. 3, c. 50, s. 11.—A landlrrd distrained hay and unthreshed corn for arrears of rent; the lease contained a covenant by the tenant not to remove hay and unthreshed com, &c, from the premises, but to use them on the premises demised. The landlord sold the hay, &c, subject to the condition that the purchaser should consume them on the premises, and thereby failed to obtain the best price.

Held, that such a condition was illegal, for the words " any purchaser" in the 56 Geo. 3, c. 50, s. 11, meau" any purchaser from the tenant" and do not include a purchaser of a distress from the landlord.

Alley v. Petch, 8M.&W. 419, overruled.

Ridgway v. Lord Stafford, 6 Ex. 404, and Wilmot v. Rose, 2 W. R. 278, 3 E. * B. 563, reconciled.— Hawkins v. Walrond and another, Cp.div. 824— L. R. 1 C. P. D. 280.

14. Privilege from distress for the benefit of tradeGoods in hands of auctioneer to be sold.— The exemption from distress of goods sent to an auctioneer for salo extends only to goods on premises actually in the occupation of the auctioneer for the purpose of his trade, and therefore, if goods are delivered to an auctioneer for sale, and he removes them from his own premises to a house, not in his own occupation, where he is about to conduct a sale, the goods are distrainable for rent due to the landlord of the house.

So held, where the sale was of furniture hired from

the auctioneer himself with a stipulation that in a certain event (which happened) he should be entitled to sell it for his own benefit; the court considering that the goods sent were not more privileged than the furniture, which, whether belonging to the auctioneer or not, was in the possession of the tenant, and was not exempt from distress.—Lyons v. Elliott, Q.b.div. 296—L. R. 1 Q. B. D. 210; 45 L. J. Q. B. 159; 33 L. T. 806.

Easement

15. Landlord not liable on implied covenant for support Right of owner of dominant tenement to enter servient tenement and do necessary repairs.—Where, in a lease of premises, there is a covenant by the lessee to repair, and the premises depend for support on a wall, which the lessor has a right to repair and maintain, there is no implied covenant by the lessor to maintain the supporting wall.

But semble, that such support is in the nature of an easement, and gives the lessee the right to do all things necessary for the preservation of the easement which the lessor could do.—Colebech v. The Girdlers' Company, Q.u.div. 577—L. R. 1 Q. B. D. 234; 45 L. J. Q. B. 225; 34 L. T. 350.

Lease ur Infasit

17. Building lease—11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 65.—The court has power, under 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 65, to sanction a building lease of an infant's freehold estate when he is seised in fee simple in reversion after a life estate by the courtesy vested in his father.—In re Letchford, Ch.div. V.cm.—L. R. 2 Ch. D. 719; 45 L. J. Ch. 530.

Mimes

18. Lease with reservation of right to work Lateral support.—The defendants, having power under a reservation in a lease to get minerals under the lands of the plaintiffs, commenced workings; under their own lands of such a character and in such a direction as they would have had to make under the reservation in the lease if they had chosen to exercise it, and by such workings caused the plaintiffs' land to sink. The plaintiffs having sued the defendants,

Held, upon a special case stated by an arbitrator, that judgment ought to be for the plaintiffs.—Whitehouse and another v. Bayley and another, Q.b.div.— 34 L. T. 93.

Mistake

19. Discrepancy in term between the habendum and reddendum — Reforming lease as against a purchaser.—By a lease made in 1784, the term was stated in the habendum to be "ninety-four years and one-quarter of a year," whilst in the reddendum the rent was payable "during the said term of ninety-one years and one-quarter of a year hereby demised." The counter-part of the lease corresponded in all respects with the lease except that in the habendum the term was ninety-one years and one-quarter, instead of ninety-four years and one-quarter.

In an action by the assignee of the lessor to recover possession,

The court refused to reform the lease as against the executors of a purchaser of the residue of the term, Bo as to make it a lease for only ninety-one years and a quarter; and in construing the lease rejected the words " of ninety-one years and one-quarter of a year" in the reddendum, and held the lease to be for ninetyfour years and one-quarter, paying rent "during the said term," namely, the said term of ninety-four yearsand one-quarter.—Burchell v. Clark, Cp.div.—45L. J. C. P. 671.

See also Nuisancb, 6 ; Practice, 185.

131 landlord and Tenant (Ir.). DIGEST. landlord and Tenant (Ir.). 132

LAND LORD and TENANT (IRELAND) :—
Agreement Fob, A Leabe

1. To an action for breach of an agreement to execute a lease, it is no answer to allege that the plain, tiff (the intended lessee) had not prepared the lease and tendered it for execution to the defendant (the intended lessor). — Cantley v. Powell, Q.b. (Ir.)— L R. 10 C. L. 200.

Covenant

2. Covenant against sub-lettingLicence to occupy Trespass.—A lessee, holding under a lease containing a clause against sub-letting, sub-let a portion of the premises to the plaintiff as tenant from year to year. The mesne lessor having died, the defendant trespassed on the plaintiff's part of the premises.

Held, iu trespass q. c. /., that the sub-letting to the plaintiff was at least a licence to occupy, and that the plaintiff, being in possession, was entitled to hold it until the licence was revoked by competent authority, and that authority derived from the administratrix of the mesne lessor, who obtained administration after the committing of the trespass, did not relate back so as to justify it.—Littleton v. M'Namara, c.r. (Ir.)— I. R. 9 C. L. 417.

3. Covenant for renewal for lives nominated by lesseesRule against perpetuities.—The Court of Appeal affirmed the decree of the Master of the Rolls, I. R. 9 Eq. 229, 23 \V. R.Dig. 113.—Pollock v. Booth, CH.Arr. (Ir.)—I. R. 9 Eq. 607.

4. Covenant to renewPerpetuityEncroachments by under-tenantsLease of church landsCosts.— Where on an application by a sub-lessee of church lauds (held by lease with a covenant to renew toties quoties) for a grant in perpetuity, it appeared that encroachments had been made by his under-tenants upon adjoining property of the immediate landlords, the respondents,

The court refused to order the execution of a grant iu perpetuity until the encroachments should be restored, and directed that the petitioner Bhould pay the costs incurred by the respondents in recovering the encroachments by ejectment for the purpose of enabling the grant to be set aside.— Ussher, Petitioner, v. Balfour and another, Respondents, v.c. (Ir.)—I. R. 10 Eq. 218.

5. Covenant to renewPerpetuityConversion under Church Temporality ActsEffect of, on quasitenunt in tail under a will.—By a will dated in 1836, See-lauds, held by the testator under a sub-lease for thirty-one years, with a toties quoties covenant for renewal, were bequeathed to R. D. for life, with remainder to his first and other sons in gutm-tail; in 1851, during the lifetime of R. D. and of R. C. D., his eldest son, the interest in the sub-lease was converted into an estate in fee, and afterwards R. C. D., an infant and unmarried, predeceased R. D.

Held, that R. D. was entitled to the lands absolutely as heir-at-law of R. C. D.—In re Dane's Estate, L.e.c. (Ir.)—I. R. 10 Eq. 207.

Distress

6. DetinueEvidence of state of goods when returned to the plaintiffExcessive damages. — In detinue for illegal distress, if the defendant plead the return and acceptance of the goods after action brought, evidence on the part of the plaintiff is admissible to show their damaged state after the commencement of the action.

To render damages excessive, the amount should be such that no reasonable proportion exists between it and the circumstances of the case.—M'Orath v. Bourne, Ex. (Ir.)—I. R. 10 C. L. 160.

Ejectment

7. Covenant against alienationPurchase of landlord's reversion.—P. M., holding under a lease containing a clause against alienation without the consent of the landlord, assigned a moiety of the demised premises in 1869 to J. M. without the landlord's consent. In 1873 the landlord's reversion was conveyed by the Landed Estates Court to J. M. and others as joint-tenants, and in 1874 J. M. mortgaged to defendant. P. M. brought an ejectment, on the ground that the assignment of 1869 was void.

Held, that section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1860, did not apply, and that plaintiff was not entitled to recover.—Patrick Moynehan v. John Hickey, Q.b. (Ir.)—I. R. 10 C. L. 253.

8. Non-payment of rentTenderSetting aside proceedings.—A tender, in ejectment for non-payment of rent, of the year's rent post diem, but before action brought, is no ground for setting aside or Btaying the proceedings.

The right to tender the rent due has ceased to exist in ejectment for non-payment of rent.—Allen v. O'Callaghan, Ex. (Ir.)—I. R. 10 C. L. 23.

9. Lease not executed by lesseeDelivery to lesseeAdverse possessionStatute of Limitations.—In ejectment on the title, defendant relied on twenty years' adverse possession, to obviate which plaintiff gave in evidence a lease the last life in which died within the twenty years; but, though both the lease and the counterpart were attested as "signed, sealed, and delivered" by the lessor, neither of them was executed by the lessee, and both, being seventy years old, came out of the custody of the lessor.

Held, that the verdict directed for the defendant ohould stand.—Earl ofMiltown v. Goodman, c.r. (Ir.) —I. R. 10 C. L. 27.

ESTOPPEL—

10. Estate at will.—D. R., who had possession but no title, let lands by parol to defendant for a term of two years, within which period D. R. by deed assigned the same lands to plaintiff, who, before the expiration of the two years, demanded possession from defendant, and brought an ejectment against him.

Held (reversing the decision of the Common Pleas), that defendant was estopped from denying the title of D. R., under whom plaintiff derived, and that plaintiff was entitled to recover.—Ward v. Ryan, Ex.ch. (Ir.)— I. R. 10 C. L. 17.

Land Act, 1870—

11. Ejectment.— Proceedings in ejectment stayed until payment by landlord of compensation under the Land Act, the tenant undertaking on such payment to give up possession of the premises.—Judge v. Belton, Cons.cham. (Ir.)—I. R. 9 C. L. 414.

12. Stamp on notice to quit.—By an agreement in writing, made in 1862, the plaintiff let land to the defendant from year to year, and the latter agreed to give up possession at any time upon getting one month's notice in writing. On the 27th of November, 1873, the plaintiff served a notice in writing requiring possession on the 27th of December following.

Held, that the notice was not valid, because not stamped pursuant to sections 57 and 58 of the Land Act, 1870.

Semble, that these sections have a retrospective effect, and that six months' notice was necessary to entitle plaintiff to possession. — Vernon v. Rae, Q.b. (Ir.)—I. R. 9 C. L. 448.

133 Landlord and Tenant (Ir.). DIGEST. Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. 134

Summary Jurisdiction

13. Small tenementsMonthly tenancy Execution of warrant.—A tenancy from month to month is within the jurisdiction of the court of petty sessions, under section 15 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act (14 & 15 Vict. c. 92). A single justice at petty sessions may issue a warrant of possession under section 15, sub-section 3.

A warrant dated the 1st of March, and executed on the 10th of March, was too late and illegal.

A sub-inspector E.I.C. may indorse a warrant to any constable and assistants, but such constable cannot delegate his authority.—Blue v. Fullerton and others, Ex. (Ir.)—I. E. 10 C. L. 233.

LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT, 1845 :— Arbitration

1. Municipal corporation Land injuriously affected Owner under disability Surveyor nominated by two justicesLands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, ss. 9, 22, 68— Water Works Clauses Consolidation Act, 1847, ss. 6,12.—A municipal corporation, having power by a local Act to construct water works for supplying their borough with water, entered into an agreement under their seal to refer to valuers the amount of compensation-money to be then paid for the damage which the plaintiff, the owner for the time being of a certain mill and premises, might sustain by the abstraction of the whole of the streams, springs, and waters which the corporation were authorized to take, use, divert, and appropriate. The corporation at the time of entering into the agreement did not require, and had not since required, to divert more than a small portion of the streams for completing their water works, although they had originally given the plaintiff notice of their intention to divert the whole.

Held, that such an agreement was not ultra vires of the corporation, as against their ratepayers.

The valuers could not agree, and thereupon a third surveyor was duly nominated by two justices "to determine the amount of compensation to be paid," who made a valuation with declaration annexed in accordance with the provisions of the 9th section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845.

Held, that this was not an arbitration within the 68th section, but a valuation under the 9th section.

The owner for the time being of the mill was only tenant for life.

Held, that the said valuation bound the remainderman.

The word " such " in the phrase " the compensation to be paid for any permanent damage or injury to any such lands" in the 9th section is insensible, and the section is to be read as though it were not there; hence its provisions refer, not only to lands taken and purchased, but also to lands injuriously affected.

Bush v. Trowbridge Water Works Company, 23 W. E. 641, L. E. 10 Ch. 458, followed.

Ferrand v. Corporation of Bradford, 21 Beav. 415, 4 W. E. Ch. Dig. 109, treated as overruled.—Stone v. The Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Yeovil, C.p.div. 1073—45 L. J. C. P. 657; 34 L. T. 874.

2. Power of arbitrator to state special caseCommon Law Procedure Act, 1854, s. 5—Compensation for "damage"Actionable damageLands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, ss. 25, 68—Airedale Valley Drainage Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. clx.), ss. 43, 44, 45.—An arbitration under the 25th section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, where each party has appointed an arbitrator, is an arbitration "by consent" within the meaning of the 5th section of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, so as to enable the umpire to state his award in the

form of a special case for the opinion of a superior court.

Re Dare Valley Railway Company, 17 W. R. 717, L. E. 4 Ch. 554, followed.

Rhodes v. Airedale Drainage Commissioners, L. E. 9 C. P. 508, overruled.

By the Airedale Drainage Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict, c. clx.), which incorporated the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, full compensation was to be made to the owners, lessees, and occupiers of certain specified estates for any "damage" by reason of, or in any way consequential upon, the exercise of the powers of the Act.

Held (reversing the decision of the Common Pleas Division, Lord Coleridge, C.J., and Archibald, J., Amphlett, B., diss.), that compensation could only be claimed for damage which apart from the special Act would have been actionable.—Rhodes v. Airedale Drainage Commissioners, App. 1053—L. E. 1 C. P. D. 402; 45 L. J. C. P. 337.

Compensation

3. DistributionStintBye-laws.—The copyhold tenants of a manor were entitled to common of pasture upon certain waste and lammas lands subject to byelaws made by the homage, and such rights were preserved after enfranchisement. The last bye-laws, made in 1835, provided that every copyholder and freeholder should be entitled to turn on one head of cattle for every £10 of annual value of his lands and tenements, provided that the whole number should not exceed thirty; and that every occupier of any copyhold or freehold lands should be entitled to turn on a certain number of cattle according to the rental or annual value of his lands and tenements. Portions of the common lands were taken compulsorily, and compensation for the rights of common was paid to a committee of the copyholders.

Held, that such compensation was divisible among the copyhold tenants of the manor and the freeholders within the manor according to the stint fixed by the first clause of the bye-laws.—Fox v. Amhurst, V.c.m.— L. E. 20 Eq. 403; 44 L. J. Ch. 666.

4. Injury to property from public worksMetropolis Local Management Act (18 dk 19 Vict. c. 120), ss. 98, 150, 151, 152—St. Marylebone Acts (35 Geo. 3, c. 73, a. 53; 57 Geo. 3, c. xxix.,s. 52).—By two Acts of George III., the defendants were empowered to alter the levels of streets without compensating those injured by such alteration. The Metropolis Local Management Act enables a vestry to purchase any right or easement over any land which may be necessary for the execution of works undertaken by them; it also incorporates the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, but excludes the operation of sections 16—68, being those sections which relate to "the taking of lands otherwise than by agreement"; and by section 247 it repeals all Acts which are inconsistent with it.

The defendants, in raising the level of a street under their statutory powers, obstructed the light of and the entrances to the plaintiff's houses, and refused refused to enter into any agreement with him or to pay any compensation.

Held, following Ferrar v. The Commissioners of Sewers, 17 W. E. 709, L. E. 4 Ex. 227, that in the absence of any agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation, as section 68 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act was not incorporated; and that the defendants were acting under the Acts of George III., which were not repealed by the Metropolis Local Management Act.—Baker v. The Vestry of St, Marylebone, Bx.div. 848.

5. Interest on compensation Time from which interest is to be calculated.—Where a railway compaay had taken possession, of land under their statutory powers, and lodged in court the sum awarded as compensation by the arbitrator, which was afterwards increased on a traverse to the award,

135 Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. DIGEST. Law of New South Wales. 136

Held, that interest, at the rate of four per cent., upon the difference was payable from the time when the company went into possession of the lands.—In re Navan and Kingscourt Railway Company, T.c. (Ir.)— L E. 10 Eq. 113.

6. InvestmentCash, under control of the courtEast India £4 per cent, stock.—Purchase-money paid into court in respect of land taken by a railway company under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, is cash under the control of the court, and accordingly the eourt has power to direct the investment thereof in East India £4 per cent stock.

In re Boyd's Settled Estate considered.—In rt Fryer's Settlement, Fryer v. Salisbury and Dorset Junction Railway Company, V.c.h.—L. R. 20 Eq. 468,.

7. Mortgages affecting lands of corporation—5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, ss. 92, 94—9 <fe 10 Vict. c. 74, «. 21.— Purchase-money paid into court by a railway company in respect of lands taken from a corporation allowed to be applied in discharge of money borrowed by the corporation under the Baths and "Wash-houses Act, 1846, and secured by bonds under the seal of the corporation; and also in discharge of mortgages of the tolls of the borough cattle market and market hall.— Re Derby Municipal Estate, Ch.div. V.c.h. 729.

8. Permanent improvementsAdditions to house.— Money paid' into court as compensation under the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, allowed to be expended in making additions to a house.—Re Speers' Trusts, Ch.div. V.c.b. 880.

9. Permanent improvementOleic landsFarmhouseLands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, s. 69. —Where parts of glebe lands had been purchased by a railway company,

The court sanctioned the application of a portion of the purchase-money towards the cost of erecting farmbuildings on the remaining part of the lands, there being evidence that the buildings were required and had permanently increased the value of the lands.— Re Qamston Rectory, Ch.div, V.c.b. 359—L. R. 1 Ch. D. 477; 33 L. T. 803.

10. Permanent improvements Olebe lands Rebuilding of rectoryRepair of chancelMortgage debt to Queen Anne's Bounty.—Purchase-money for glebe lands taken by railway company allowed to be applied in re-building rectory; but not in repairing chancel or in repayment of money borrowed from Queen Anne's Bounty.—In re Louth and East Coast Railway Company, Ex parte Rector of Grimoldby, Ch.div. V.c.h. 723—L. R. 2 Ch. D. 225.

11. Railway companyDeposit upon taking possession of landsCompensation in respect of working minesRailways Clauses Act, ss. 78, 81.—The bond given by a railway company before entry upon lands under section 85 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act is not a security for compensation in respect of minerals payable by the company under sections 78, 81, of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act.—Ex parte The Neath and Brecon Railway Company, Ch.div. V.ch. 357—L. R. 2 Ch. D. 201 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 196.

Costs

12. Injury to propertyOffer of compensationSecond increased offeiAward less than second offer Costs—Time of making offer—32 & 33 Vict. c. 18, e. 1.—The N.-E. Ry. Co. gave notice to G., under the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, of their intention to summon a jury to assess the compensation to be paid him for certain lands of his taken and injuriously affected by

the company for the purposes of their undertaking, and offered him £315. Or. gave the company a notice requiring the compensation to be settled by arbitration. After the arbitrators had been named on both sides the company gave G. notice of an application to the Board of Trade to a name a valuer to assess the deposit to be made by them on taking possession, which was accordingly assessed at £472 16s. 10d., and a verbal offer of that sum, as compensation, was made by the company to G. Meanwhile, the arbitrators had appointed their umpire, and extended the time for making their award. After the expiry of the time secondly so extended, the company made a written offer to Or. of £472 16s. 10d., saying nothing as to costs. G. accepted the offer, and asked for his costs, which were refused; and the arbitration proceeding, the umpire awarded £447 5s. to G.

Held, that G. was entitled to have his costs taxed under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1869.—In the Matter of an Arbitration between Qray and the North-Eastern Railway Company, a.B.nrv. 758—34 L. T. 757.

13. Interim investment.—Where a tenant for life for his own purpose Berves a petition for the investment of funds in court under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, and payment of the dividends to him for life, on a trustee as representing remaindermen, the costs of such service will not be thrown upon the railway company.—In re Dowling's Trusts, Ch.div. M.b, 729—45 L. J. Ch. 568.

14. Payment out of courtSeveral companiesAmalgamated companies.—The rule as to equal apportionment of costs laid down in Ex parte Bishop of London, 8 W. R. 465, 714, 2 De G. F. & J. 14, applies in the case of a petition for payment out to the petitioner of funds paid into court by different bodies; and when some of such bodies have been amalgamated the costs are divided equally between the bodies liable at the date of the petition.—Ex parte Oaskell, Ch.div. M.r. 752—L. R. 2 Ch. D. 360; 45 L. J. Ch. 368.

15. Re-investment in landRestricted contract— Purchaser's costs.—When money paid into court under, the Lands Clauses Act is sought to be re-in vested in land upon a contract which throws upon the purchasei costs of the purchase which in an open contract would be borne by the vendor, the costs directed to be paid by the company will be limited to those which in an open contract would be purchaser's costs.—Ex parte Governors of Christ's Hospital, V.c.m.—L. B. 20 Eq. 605.

Payment Out Of Court

16. Disentailing deed.—The court will not pay out funds, the produce of lands taken by a railway company, to a tenant in tail in possession, or to a tenant for life and tenant in tail in remainder, without production of a disentailing deed duly enrolled.—In re Limerick and Ennis Railway Company, Ex parte Smyth, M.r. (Ir.)—I. R. 10 Eq. 66.

Petition

17. Funds in different branches of the courtPractice.—Where portions of a settled estate had been taken by different companies, and the purchasemoneys had been paid into different branches of the court,

Held, that one petition might be presented in both matters in one branch of the court, and that the transfer of either of the matters might be dispensed with.—Re Lord Ardcn's Settled Estates, L.jj. 190.

See also Lunacy, 2, 3.

LAW of INDIA.—See Iitdia.

LAW of NEW SOUTH WALES.—See New South Wales.

« ForrigeFortsett »