1818. The KING against The Inhabitants of HORN- Wednesday, CHURCH. TWO justices by their order removed John Thurtell and Elizabeth his wife, and their three children, from the parish of Hornchurch to the parish of Purleigh, both in the county of Essex: the sessions, on appeal, quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case: of By grant dated May 18th, 1799, James Thurtell, the father of the pauper, obtained from the lord of the manor a piece of the waste in the appellant parish, where he built three cottages. The grant was as follows, viz. To this court came James Thurtell, of the parish Munden, in his own proper person, and Sarah his wife, and prayed to be admitted tenant to all that piece or parcel of land or ground, being part of the waste land of this manor, containing by estimation about half a rood of waste land, a little more or less, with the cottage or tenement thereon, lately erected or built, paying to the lord the yearly rent of 2s. 6d., to whom the lord of the manor by his steward, with the consent of the homage, granted and delivered seisin thereof by the rod; to have and to hold the said piece or parcel of ground and premises, unto the said James Thurtell and Sarah his wife, and the survivor of them, and to the heirs and assigns of the survivor of them, of the lord of the said manor, at the will of the lord, by the rod, according to the custom of the said manor, (subject to such mortgage or conditional surrender as he the said James Thurtell alone, without Nov. 18th. Where there is that purpose, no custom for the lord of a manor cannot make a new grant of copyhold; and if he does, the grantee acquires thereby no set tlement by estate. Held also, that a grant by the lord of copyhold land, paying a yearly rent of 2s. 6d. (which rent in a subsequent part was called within 9 G. 1. c. 7., and being under 301., confers no settlement. 1818. The KING against The Inhabit ants of HORNCHURCH. without the consent of his wife, shall make, according to the customs of the said manor, within six months from the date hereof, for securing any sum of money not exceeding the sum of 60l. and interest,) at the yearly quit rent aforesaid, and by suit of court and other customs and services of right due and accustomed; and he giveth to the lord for fine for such his admission nothing of the special favor of the lord, and so saving all right of the lord, he is admitted tenant as aforesaid, and his fealty is respited, &c. The sessions were of opinion that this grant did not confer such an estate upon the pauper's father as would give a settle ment. Knox and Walford, in support of the order, were stopped by the Court; who called upon Broderick and Stephen, contrà. It is not necessary in cases of this sort, that any thing more should appear than that the pauper's father had the substantial possession of this estate; and here he had it, for the lord could not have taken it from him, on account of his own grant; nor could the homage question it, because they had consented to the grant; and a stranger, it is obvious, could not interfere. The pauper's father, therefore, had the substantial possession of the estate; and the grant was not made for any pecuniary consideration, as was the case in Rex v. Warblington. (a) There there was a fine paid, but there is none here. The word "purchase," in the statute of the 9 G. 1. c. 7. is used in its popular sense, as denoting a purchase for money. Rex v. Marwood. (b) For there a voluntary (b) Burr. S. C. 586. (a) 1 Term Rep, 241. conveyance, without any pecuniary consideration, was held not to be within the statute. There is no pecuniary consideration here: the quit rent of 2s. 6d. not being given as a consideration for the estate, but only in lieu of the services. ABBOTT C. J. I think that this grant was not a valid conveyance of the copyhold estate, because there is no custom stated for the lord to make a new grant of copyhold within this manor. Unless that custom exists, there can be no copyhold except where the land has been at all times demised or demisable by copy of court roll. The lord, therefore, had no right to make this grant. But even if the grant were good, I should still think that this case fell within the 9 G. 1. c. 7., for here the land was originally demised for a mere money con sideration, to be paid annually, and the sum stated in the case was a full consideration for all that the lord granted at the time. I cannot distinguish this case from Rex v. Warblington, which must govern our present decision. Then if the case falls within 9 G. 1. c. 7., it is clear that the consideration was less than 307., the sum required by the act. BAYLEY and HOLROYD Js. concurred. 1818. The KING against The Inhabit. ants of HORNCHURCH.. Order of Sessions confirmed. 1818. Wednesday, Practice. tachment. The KING against The Sheriffs of LONDON, in the Cause of HOLLIER against CLARK. At THE plaintiff sued the defendant as acceptor of a bill of exchange, and at the same time brought actions against the drawer and indorser. In this action against the acceptor he obtained an attachment against the sheriffs for not bringing in the body. An order was made by a judge at chambers, on the application of the defendant, that it should be referred to the master to compute what was due to the plaintiff on the bill, and that the attachment should stand as a security for the debt and costs. The master computed what was due on the bill, and taxed the plaintiff's costs in this action; but refused to include in his taxation the costs in the actions against the drawer and indorser. Campbell now moved for a rule to shew cause why the master should not review his taxation, and why the attachment should not stand as a security for the debt and the costs in the three actions. He produced an affidavit, from which it appeared to have been the practice in the office of the sheriffs of London, that where an attachment has been obtained in an action against the acceptor of a bill of exchange, the costs of any actions commenced against the drawer or indorsers are always paid under the attachment. And he compared this to an application to stay proceedings in an action against the acceptor of a bill of exchange, in which the defendant is obliged to pay the costs in the actions actions against the drawer and indorsers. Woodcock, Same v. Dudley, 4 T. R. 691. But Smith v. The Court said the practice which appeared to have prevailed in the office of the sheriffs of London was unreasonable. All that the plaintiff can expect from the sheriff is what he could have recovered in the action had he proceeded to judgment and execution against the defendant. Here the defendant would only have been liable for the debt and his own costs. The costs in the other actions could not have been laid as special damage, as those actions were commenced at the same time as that against the acceptor. The contempt of the sheriff is purged by placing the plaintiff in as good a situation as he could have been in had the defendant's body been brought into court, 1818. The KING Rule refused. (a) (a) See Windham v. Wither, Str. 515. HAY and Others, Assignees of MATTHEWS, a Friday, ASSUMPSIT for money had and received by the defendants to the use of the plaintiffs as assignees of Thomas Matthews a bankrupt. Plea, general issue. The cause was tried before Wood B. at the assizes for the county of Durham 1817, when a verdict was found Nov. 20th. The 21 Juc. 1. c. 19. s. 11. is not repealed as the ship-register acts; and there to shipping by fore when A., the owner of a ship, duly assigned his in terest in it to B., and B. became the registered owner, but by his permission, A. continued to have the same in his possession, order, and disposition, until he became bankrupt: Held that the property in the ship passed to 4.'s assignees under the statute of James. VOL. II. for |