« ForrigeFortsett »
an act of parliament which is to operate generally, and giving the benefit of the exemption to the office of constable. It is clear from the acts cited, that the legislature has sometimes considered the constable as a parish officer, and that will sufficiently justify us in giving the same construction to the word parish-office bere. It is admitted by Mr. LITTLEDALE, lhat, notwithstanding, the appointment of constable is not from the parish, but is froin the leet and for the manor, still, if, by accident, the manor and the parish happen to be co-extensive, the person having such a certificate is exempt. But that goes to admit, what is now contended for, by the defendant ; for that makes the construction of the word parish office not strictly literal. Then the words of the act are not extended beyond their fair import, if the jurisdiction of the constable goes over the township and district which does not extend beyond the limits of the place where the felony is committed; bat it might in the case of The King v. Darbyshire have extended to a place where the party had no merit in the respect mentioned in the act of parlia. ment. This is the very reverse of that case. "
JUDGMENT for the DEFENDANT.
Zouch on the demise of Tuomas Forse against Henry
Forse.--4th Feb. A. is admitted tenant of a copyhold in reversion, for the life Occapareg.
Copyhold. of B. after the deaths of C. and D.; before the reder. Stat. 29Car. II. sion or remainder vested in possession, A. the grantee died, c. 3, 14Geo.ll.
c. 20, Fjecte and afterwards, upon the death of the first taker and his meut. cestui que vie, the administrator of A, was admitted, as administrator, for the life of B. and brought cjectment : Held, that he could not recover ; for copyholds are not sithin the statutes of special occupancy, riz. the statuta 29 Car. II. c. 3, and 14 Geo. II, c. 90, and the admiss
sion gate no title and granted no interest, but such as he
claimed us administrator, • 1806. THIS was an ejectment to recover one moiety of a Zovem dem.
1 copyhold tenement in the manor of Froom Van. THOMAS Forse church, in the county of Dorset, and it was tried Y FORSE. Before Mr. Justice LE BLANC, at the last assizes for
the county of Dorset, when the jury found a verdict
(as sole purchaser) paid the lord, for a fine, 381, but the 1806. admittance and fealty of the said Robert Forse and Zovch on the Henry Forse his son, is respited. William Forse continu-TROMASPURSE
i demise of ed seised till the year 1764, when he died; and uponas 'tersusun
HENRY Fonse, his death, the said Henry Forse, the son of W. Forse, 2001 TIH entered and continued seised till 1795, when he died, and upon his death, his widow entered and continued in possession till 1803, when she died. The above named Robert Forse, to whom the reversion was so granted, died intestate in 1775, leaving six sons, William Forse the eldest, Henry the cestui que vie, named in the said grant, Thomas Forse the lessor of the plaintiff, and three others, and upon his death, administration of his effects was duly granted to two persons, who are since dead; after which, viz. February 1st, 1804, administration de bonis non was granted to the lessor of the plaintiff, who, on the 25th day of August, 1904, was admitted tenant to the said moiety for the life of the said Henry Forse, the son of Robert Forse. No evidence was produced of any custom in the manor, that the cestui que vie, not taking by the habendum, should have any beneficial interest. The question for the opinion of the court is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover?
Taunton, W. P. for the plaintiff. « The question in this case is, whether an executor de bonis non of one who was admitted tenant in reversion of a copyhold per autre vie, can maintain ejectment for the same. The lessor of the plaintif founds his title upon the original grant of the reversion to his intestate 'on the 24th of July, 1761, and on the admission of biinself, 25th August, 1804. He then divided the question into four points as follows: first, what estate the lessor of the plaintifj' would have aţ common law before the statutes of special occupancy 99 Car. II,
6. 3, and 14 Geo. Il. c. 20; and he contended on this · NQ. XXIX, N, s.
- 1806. head, that eyen before these statutes, the estate would
on the still have subsisted, and would not have been deter.' domise of mined by the death of the grantee for life. Secondly, * versus *** that, by these statutes, the copyhold was in the lessor HENRY FORSE. of the plaintiff as special occupant ; notwithstanding
that by the common law, there could not be an estate by general occupancy of a copyhold, because upon the death of the tenant, the estate was in the lord. Thirdly, if the lord is entitled to enter, he is only entitled to enter as trustee for the executor the tenant per autre vie, and even a court of law, seeing where the right is, and seeing the ground of the admission of the lessor of 'the plaintiff, will give effect to his title. Or fourthly and lastly, that the admission passed a right of entry to the lessor of the plaintiff on which he is entitled to recover. First, all grants must be taken most strongly against the grantor; and a grant to a man of a copyhold, enables him to alienate for his own life, notwithstanding his assigns are not mentioned in the grant; and then of such an estate as this which is to continue for the life of another, the administrator of the grantee is the assignee in law. There is indeed as to this point no decided case, either the one way or the other ; but yet, at common Jaw, there can be no estate by occupancy of a copyhold, because as it is said in Smartlę y. Penhallow,* the lord might enter, and it is in that case considered as settled law, although there is a dictum to the contrary in Coke's Copyholder;t and surrenders are construed as conveyances at common law, Fisher y. Wegg, Burgess v. Wheat, Bucknal's case. If a lease is made to A. during the lives of B. and C., by the death of one of thein, the estate is not deter
* 6 Modern, 66. + s. 56, p.115. f 1 Peere Will. 14.
§ 1 Bl. 167. 1 ; Co. 9 b.
mined, though it would be otherwise if it were a 1806 condition instead of a limitation. So in Rosses' case, * Zouch on the a lease to A. and his assigns for life, and for the lives demise of of B. and C. is a lease for three lives. So a grant **
THOMAS FORSR to J. S. is a grant for life ; and a grant to J. S. for the Henry FORSI: life of A. and B. is a grant for and during the life of either of them.+ The principal point, however, is in case the grant by the common law determined by the death of the grantee, whether by the statute 29 Car. II. c. 11, s. 9, it is continued to his personal repre, sentative, who is admitled by the lord under that grant."
Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. “ In point of fact, he is only admitted as administrator de bonis non, and there are no terms in the admission which amount to a grant; for that was intended only to invest him with the title which he claims as administralor.' There are no words of grant made use of by the lord.”
Taunton. “The words of the statute are any estate per autre vie, shall be devisable by a will in writing, signed by the party so devising the same, or by some other person in bis presence and by his express directions, attested and subscribed in the presence of the devisor or by three or more witnesses. And if no such devise thereof be made, the same shall be chargeable in the hands of the heir if the same shall: come to him by reason of special occupancy as assets by descent as in case of lands in fee-simple ; and in case there be no special occupant thereof, it shall go to the executors or administrators of the party that had the estate thereof, by virtue of the grant, and shall be assets in their hands."
Lord ELLEN BOROUGH, C. J. “Have you any cases
5 Co. 13, 6,
Cro. Eliz. 181. Cro. Jac. 282.