Fines on joint tenants. In some of the older books (q) it is said that this mode of assessing fines on copyholds which are granted for lives successively is not applicable to the cases where the lives are admitted as joint tenants or as tenants in common, for joint tenants make but one tenant to the lord, and therefore only one fine not exceeding two years' value would be due from them; and in the case of tenants in common each has severally to be admitted, and a single fine would be apportioned between them, each paying his several share. In the case of joint tenants, it seems to be usual for one tenant only to take admittance, his admission being the admittance of his co-tenants, and when that is the case only one fine would be due, and the joint tenant who paid it could compel the others to contribute their proportions. But where all the joint tenants are admitted, it appears now to be clear that the lord would have a right to demand more than two years' value as a fine, for if one of two joint tenants die, the other will have the copyhold by survivorship without the necessity of a fresh admittance or fine, because each is the owner of the whole; and one joint tenant can release his share to the other without the intervention of the lord. By these incidents of their estate the lord is deprived of his chance of fines, and therefore it has been held that the rule of assessing a fine for joint tenants should be the same as where there are successive estates in a copyhold for lives. This principle was approved in the case of Taylor v. Pembroke (r), where it appeared that three trustees had been admitted as joint tenants of a copyhold tenement in the manor of Sutton Holland, in Lincolnshire, and that the lord had demanded as a fine for the first life two years' improved value, for the second half the sum assessed for the first, and for the third half the sum assessed for the second. The Court of King's Bench expressed a strong opinion that the fine was (q) Watk. Copyh. i. 312; Cru. Dig. tit. 10, c. 4, s. 37. (r) Cited in Wilson v. Hoare, 2 B. & Ad. 350, 354. reasonable, as it would never amount to four years' improved value; the case, however, appears on appeal to have been sent back for fresh trial, and the point was thus not expressly decided. But the principle was finally established in the case of Wilson v. Hoare (s), of which the chief circumstances were as follows:-A copyhold was vested in fourteen trustees, and by a decree in Chancery it had been ordered that when the number should be reduced to five the lord should nominate nine others (with the approbation of the Court), to be added to the five, and that a new surrender should be made and the trustees admitted on payment of a reasonable fine. The estate was valued at 1,000l. per annum. It was held, that a fine of 5,6577. 198. on the admission of the fourteen trustees (the number having been filled up) was unreasonable, and that the principle of assessment should be to charge half as much for the second as for the first, half as much for the third as for the second, and so on in a descending series, approaching, but never reaching, a total of four years' value; and it was held that, under the circumstances of the case, a deduction should be made on account of the right to take the new fine on the death of nine out of the fourteen lives instead of at the death of the last survivor. Evidence was given on one of the trials, which is cited by Serjt. Scriven, in his account of the case (), to the effect "that, if copyhold premises be held on a single life of thirty years, the interest in them would last on an average twenty-eight years; that if one life aged thirty would be worth on renewal 2,0007., then two lives of the same age would be worth 2,4307., and three such lives 2,6087., and that the addition of any further number could not exceed 3,000.; that if 2,000l. was a reasonable fine on the admission of one life, the admission of fourteen of the several ages of the defendants, to be renewed when reduced to five, would be 2,1117.; and that the interest in fourteen (8) 10 A. & E. 236. (t) Scriv. Copyh. 328, n. (2). Fines on tenants in common. Fines due on change of tenants. lives, which are to be surrendered and re-admitted when reduced to five, is not so valuable as the interest in nine lives absolute." The decision in Wilson v. Hoare was followed shortly afterwards by the case of Shepherd v. Woodford (u), where the same principle of assessment was upheld. As regards tenants in common, the rule is that each tenant is admitted separately, and therefore each will pay a separate fine (); and as there is no survivorship between them, on the death of any one his customary heir will be admitted, and pay a fine, if any is due by the custom of the manor, on the descent to him. As to the persons from whom a fine is due, the general rule is that a fine is to be paid upon every change in the tenancy. If therefore a copyholder in fee dies, a fine is due from the heir, unless there is a custom that no fine is payable on descent to an heir (y); and so in the case of the heir of a copyholder with right of renewal, or the successor nominated by custom (≈); and the death of the heir will not deprive the lord of his right (a). If the surrenderee dies before admittance, his heir must pay two fines (b). The devisee of an unadmitted testator must in the same way pay the fine which would have been due had the testator been admitted, and had then surrendered to the use of his will and devised (c). In the case of Lord Londesborough v. Foster (d), it was held that where a testator died before admittance his devisee had to pay two fines, notwithstanding that the copyhold was held in trust, and that the lord had admitted some of the cestui-que-trusts, (u) 5 M. & W. 608. (x) Fisher v. Wigg, 1 P. Wms. 14, 21. (y) Doe d. Tarrant v. Hellier, 3 T. R. 162. (z) Co. Copyh. s. 41; Brown's Case, 4 Rep. 21 a, 22 b; Doe d. Twining v. Muscott, 12 M. & W. 832; 1 Vict. c. 26, s. 4. (a) Morse v. Faulkner, 1 Anst. 11. (b) Rex v. Coggan, 6 East, 431; Morris v. Clarkson, 3 Swan. 558; but see Garland v. Alston, 3 H. & N. 390, as to the case of a surrenderee of a remainder dying in the lifetime of the tenant for life. (c) 1 Vict. c. 26, s. 4. (d) 3 B. & S. 805. who had paid customary fines; but it appears by one of the reports of this case that this took place by virtue of a special custom (e). On every devise of copyholds the devisee is to pay the same fine as would have been due from the customary heir (ƒ). A person who acquires a copyhold as special occupant must pay the same fine as a purchaser (g), a due deduction being made in respect of the expectation of life of the cestui-que-vie (h); and this applies to the representatives of an intestate tenant pur autre vie taking his estate under the provisions of the Wills Act(i). The executor of a copyholder for years pays a fine upon admittance, because there is a change of the tenant (). Coparceners make but one heir, and are entitled to be admitted on one fine (7). But if a coparcener dies, and the other becomes entitled by descent, another fine will be due (m). Where every tenant of a manor holds for the joint lives of himself and the admitting lord, on the death of the latter each tenant must pay the general fine for readmittance, and on admittance after a descent or alienation of a tenement another fine (called a "dropping fine") will be paid, as before mentioned (n). If the tenant in possession acquires a new estate, he must be re-admitted. and pay a fine, as where a tenant for life becomes tenant in fee by descent or devise (o); so where a tenant was admitted provisionally to prevent the lord's seizure, and afterwards became entitled beneficially, a new admittance and fine was required (p). And if by a surrender to uses the tenant takes back a particular estate, he must pay a fresh fine (q); and so if by any assurance, after the year 1833, (e) 9 Jur. N. S. 1173. (f) 1 Vict. c. 26, s. 5. (g) Co. Copyh. s. 56. (h) Gilb. Ten. 327. (i) Sect. 6. (k) Bath (Earl of) v. Abney, 1 Burr. 206. (1) Rex v. Bonsall Manor (Lord of), 3 B. & C. 173. (m) Co. Copyh. s. 56. (n) Somerset (Duke of) v. France, 1 Stra. 654. (0) Doe d. Winder v. Lawes, 7 A. & E. 195. (p) Reg. v. Corbett, 1 E. & B. 836. (a) Roe d. Noden v. Griffits, 4 Burr. 1952. Trustees. Mortgages. a person conveys to himself or his heirs, such person will be deemed to have purchased a fresh estate (r). But if a copyholder in fee surrenders for life, reserving the reversion, and the tenant for life dies, the copyholder shall not be admitted again, nor pay a fine, because the reversion was never out of him (s); and if a copyhold is granted upon condition, and the condition is broken, and the grantor enters, he shall not be admitted nor pay a fine, because upon the entry he is to all intents as if no grant had been made (t). Where trustees surrender to the use of themselves and other newly-appointed trustees, they must all be admitted and pay a fine assessed for a joint estate upon the principle already mentioned (u). Where the condition of a mortgage surrender is broken, a fine will be due on the admission of the mortgagee, and also on a subsequent readmission of the mortgagor (a). Where before the Act 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, copyholds were extendible by custom for judgment debts, the tenant by elegit had to be admitted and to pay a fine (y); and it is presumed that the necessity applies to judgment creditors to whom copyBankruptcy. holds may now be delivered in execution. Under the old law, it was held that the assignees of a bankrupt had to be admitted before they could convey to a purchaser, and a fine was due on their admittance as well as on the admission of the purchaser (); but now it is provided (a) that where any part of the property of a bankrupt is of copyhold or customary tenure, the trustee shall not be compellable to take admittance to the property, but may deal with it in the same manner as if it had been duly surrendered to such uses as the trustee may appoint, and any (r) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 106, s. 3. (s) Podger's Case, 9 Rep. 104 a, 107 a. (t) Co. Copyh. s. 56. (u) Shepherd v. Woodford, 5 M. & W. 608. (x) Tredway v. Fotherley, 2 Vern. 367; Fawcet v. Lowther, 2 Ves. 300; Coote, Mortgage, 4th ed. 231. (y) Co. Copyh. s. 56. (z) Drury v. Man, 1 Atk. 95. |