Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

appointee of the trustee shall be admitted to the property accordingly.

If a wife by custom has the whole or part of a copyhold for her freebench, upon her admission a fine will be paid; half a fine is commonly taken, but that depends upon the custom; and so in the case of a customary tenant by the curtesy (b). But, as has been already mentioned, in a great many manors no fines are paid for admittances to these estates (c).

men.

The admission of the particular tenant being usually Fines on the admission of all in remainder, a person becoming remainderentitled to an estate in remainder under a will, whether vested or contingent, or by way of executory devise, is entitled to the benefit of the admittance of a devisee of the prior estate, inasmuch as he comes in directly under the will when the remainder vests or the contingency happens (d). On the same principle, it is held that the heir of one to whose use the tenant in remainder had surrendered during the life of the tenant in possession was entitled to be admitted on payment of a single fine (e). Where the heir of a reversioner surrendered during the life of the particular tenant, the surrenderee had to pay the fine in respect of the descent, as well as for his own admittance (). The devisee of a copyhold, having been admitted on payment of a full fine, surrendered to the use of himself for life with remainders over, and paid a small customary fine: it was held that, in the absence of a special custom, no fine was payable on the admission of the tenant in remainder (g). But by such a special custom a remainderman may be compelled to be admitted and pay a

(b) Kitch. Jurisd. 242; Co. Copyh. s. 56; Forder v. Wade, 4 Bro. Ch. Cas. 520.

(c) Ante, pp. 162, 167.

(d) Barnes v. Corke, 3 Lev. 308; Auncelme v. Auncelme, Cro. Jac. 31; Kensington (Lord) v. Mansell, 13 Ves. jun. 240, 246; Randfield v.

Randfield, 3 De G. F. & J. 766.
(e) Garland v. Alston, 3 H. & N.
390.

(f) Reg. v. Dullingham Manor
(Lady of), 8 A. & E. 858.

(g) Phypers v. Eburn, 3 Scott, 634.

Apportion

fine (h); "for, though the admittance of the first tenant is an admittance of them in remainder, yet it shall not prejudice the lord for his fine," where such is due by the custom (i).

In Randfield v. Randfield (k), it appeared that by the custom of the manor of Dovercourt, in Essex, it was necessary for a copyhold tenant in remainder to be admitted, and pay a fine on becoming entitled in possession, notwithstanding the admittance of the tenant for life; but no instance was shown of a devolution by way of executory devise. Knight Bruce, and Turner, L.JJ., affirming on this point the judgment of Kindersley, V.-C., held that the same rule ought to be applied to an executory devisee who becomes entitled on the defeasance of an estate in fee, although no custom applicable to such a case was established; but the Court differed on the question whether a fresh fine would be payable in a manor where there was no such custom as to remainderman. Knight Bruce, L. J., was of opinion that on the executory devise taking effect a fresh fine would be payable, as a new estate had come into existence. Turner, L. J., on the other hand, held that when the executory devise came into operation the persons entitled under it took the same estate to which admittance had been taken under the prior devise, and that consequently the case was brought within the acknowledged rule that the admission of a tenant for life is the admission of all who take in remainder; and this had also been the effect of the decision in the Court below (1).

The lord may assess the whole fine on the admittance of ment of fines. the particular tenant, or may apportion it between the different estates. "When a tenant for life comes on behalf of himself and all in remainder and reversion, if the lord

(h) Doe d. Whitbread v. Jenney, 5 East, 522; Ely (Dean & Ch. of) v. Caldecott, 8 Bing. 439; Reg. v. Woodham Walter Manor (Lord of), 10 B. & S. 439.

(i) Brown's Case, 4 Rep. 21 a, 22 b; Fitch v. Stuckley, 4 Rep. 23a; Blackburne v. Graves, 1 Mod. 102, 120.

(k) 3 De G. F. & J. 766.
(1) 1 Dr. & Sm. 310.

does not take the fine, he cannot afterwards insist upon receiving it from those in remainder; he may apportion it, but it is not open to him to say that the tenant for life shall pay nothing, and those in remainder the whole” (m). But, when the lord has assessed the whole fine on a tenant. for life, its burden will have to be apportioned between the particular tenant and the other persons for whose benefit his admission enures. The appointee under a power is in the position of a tenant in remainder (»). A fine is not due from the remainderman before admittance (o). It has been said that "the fine on admission to an estate in remainder is usually one half (p); but this seems to refer only to those cases of copyhold for lives and joint tenancies which have been already mentioned (q).

rate tene

One fine cannot properly be assessed on the admittance to Separate fines several tenements (r); but a question has sometimes arisen, due for sepawhether the shares of tenants in common are several ments. tenements for this purpose. Joint-tenants or coparceners joining in a conveyance make but one grant, and the surrenderee will pay but one fine, and the case will be the same if the particular tenant and all those in remainder or reversion join in a conveyance to a purchaser (s). But if tenants in common of undivided shares join in one conveyance, the purchaser must be admitted, and pay a fine in respect of each share (t), although after the re-union of the several undivided shares in one person the copyhold will be treated as one tenement again (u); but the re-union

(m) Kensington (Lord) v. Mansell, 13 Ves. jun. 240, 246.

(n) Ibid.

(0) Batmore v. Graves, 1 Ventr. 260; S. C. nom. Blackburne v. Graves, 1 Mod. 102, 120.

(p) Cru. Dig. tit. 10, c. 4, s. 36. (a) Ante, p. 179.

(r) Grant v. Astle, 2 Doug. 722. (s) Co. Copyh. s. 56.

(t) Reg. v. Eton College, 8 Q. B. 526; S. C. nom. Reg. v. Everdon Manor (Lords of), 16 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 18; Evans v. Upsher, 16 M. & W. 675.

(u) Garland v. Jekyll, 2 Bing. 273; Holloway v. Berkeley, 6 B. & C. 2; overruling Attree v. Scutt, 6 East, 476.

Fines due only on admittance.

Contribution to fine.

does not take place until the purchaser has been admitted to the separate shares. If a copyholder conveys his tenement in several parcels to different persons, and some of the parcels devolve upon one person, in the absence of a special custom the owner is not entitled to be admitted by one admittance and one fine (x).

When several joint-tenants are entitled to admittance, the lord may not refuse to admit one until the others pay their fine (y). And it is a general rule that the fine is not due until admittance, and any question as to the amount of the fine is properly to be determined after admittance has taken place (). Where a copyholder devised to two trustees, who would not be admitted, but tendered the heir for admittance, because on their admittance a fine and a-half would be due instead of a single fine, it was held that the lord could not seize for want of a tenant, though the heir was refused admittance, on the ground that there was brought to the knowledge of the lord a will entitling the trustees to be admitted (a); but it has since been held that the heir is entitled to admittance notwithstanding the existence of a duly executed will devising the copyholds to trustees (b).

When the fine is paid by one person whose admission enures to the benefit of others, he may compel the others to make contribution according to the rules laid down in equity for the case of a tenant for life renewing a lease, without being obliged to do so, and the contribution will be made by each person in proportion to the benefit derived from the renewal (c). So a joint-tenant or coparcener may compel the others to contribute to the admittance

(x) Traherne v. Gardner, 5 E. & B. 913.

(y) Reg. v. Wanstead Manor (Lord of), 23 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 67. (2) Reg. v. Wellesley (Lord), 2 E. & B. 924; Grand Junction Canal Co. v. Dimes, 2 Jur. 886.

(a) Garland v. Mead, L. R. 6 Q. B. 441; Reg. v. Garland, L. R.

5 Q. B. 269.

(b) Reg. v. Dudley (Earl of), unreported; decided Q. B. Div. June, 1884.

(c) See Jones v. Jones, 5 Hare, 440, 463; Hudleston v. Whelpdale, 9 Hare, 775, 785; Bradford v. Brownjohn, L. R. 3 Ch. 711.

fine. In Playters v. Abbott (d), it was held that where a testator indicates an intention that fines on the admission to copyholds should from time to time be paid in order to maintain a permanent interest in the property for the benefit of the persons to whom he has successively limited his freehold estates, and has not specified the fund out of which such payment should be made, the tenant for life and those in remainder should bear the burden of such payments in the proportion of the benefits which they actually derive from the admission; and the same principle was followed in Carter v. Sebright (e) with regard to the fines, fees, and expenses of the admission of new trustees to copyholds.

Where a fine is certain the tenant is bound to pay it When immediately after admittance, but if it is uncertain he payable. will be allowed a reasonable time for meeting the lord's

demand (f).

dies for reco

very of fine.

If the copyholder delays or refuses to pay the fine, the Lord's remelord may bring his action to recover the amount; and under the old practice it was held that both an action of debt and a general indebitatus assumpsit lay for a copyhold fine (g). If the lord admits a tenant and dies before the fine is paid, his executor may take action to recover the debt, whether the fine is certain or arbitrary (h). The lord may recover the fine assessed on admittance, though there is no entry of the assessment on the court rolls, but only a demand of such a sum for a fine after the value of the tenement has been found by the homage (i), or although he has demanded the sum under the description only of the improved value for a certain number of years of the tenement (k). The lord is not bound to identify

(d) 2 Myl. & K. 97.

(e) 26 Beav. 374.

(f) Hobart v. Hammond, 27 b.

Rep.

(g) Wheeler v. Honour, 1 Sid. 58; Whitfield v. Hunt, 2 Doug. 727, n.

(h) Shuttleworth v. Garnett, Carth. 90, 92.

(i) Northwick (Lord) v. Stanway, 6 East, 56.

(k) Fraser v. Mason, 11 Q. B. Div. 574.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »