Their nature. Lord's remedy. would have given relief to enable the lords to obtain their legal remedy. In a subsequent suit between the same parties (f) the lords claimed the same manorial dues as rent, or in the nature of rent, to be paid on the death of each tenant of the thirty-eight tenements by his representatives. It appeared that in some cases the executors of a deceased tenant had paid these customary heriots and reliefs, but it was not shown that the tenant was in possession of all the tenements, and the proportionate payment due from each estate was not known. It was held, under the circumstances, that the lords had no equity against the executors of the deceased tenant, although it appeared that in consequence of the descriptions having been lost the lords would not have any remedy at law (g). 7. Customary Reliefs. A copyholder may be bound by custom to pay a small sum, called a relief, upon every inheritance, and in some manors upon every purchase of a tenement; and elsewhere the customary fines on alienation are called reliefs (). They do not appear to be of the nature of a rent, and are not recoverable by distress, except under a special custom, the lord's remedy being in general by action (i). As with the relief due at common law from free tenants in socage, their amount is usually fixed by reference to the amount of the quit rent; but the payment is generally trifling, being fixed at a small sum for every tenant, or at half the year's quit-rent, or the like. It has been held that a relief is not apportionable (k), and it cannot be claimed on the death of one of several coparceners or joint tenants (7). (f) 3 Dr. 50. (g) See also Croome v. Guise, 4 Bing. N. C. 148, 160. (h) Co. Litt. 93a, n. 2 (Harg.); Co. Copyh. s. 25; and see Holland v. Lancaster, 2 Vent. 134. (i) Hungerford v. Havyland, W. Jon. 132; Basingstoke (Mayor of ) v. Bolton (Lord), 3 Dr. 50. (k) Anon., 3 Leon. 13. (7) Scriv. Copyh. 369. Reliefs cease to be payable when the land is enfranchised Extinguishunder the provisions of the Copyhold Acts, or when the ment. copyhold tenure is extinguished (m): and now, under the provisions of the Copyhold Acts of 1852, 1858, and 1887, the lord or the tenant or owner of any land liable to relief may compel the extinguishment of the relief and the release of the land from such payment (n). 8. Rents. The tenant is also liable in most cases to the payment of ancient rents of small amount yearly, which are called rents of assise or quit-rents, the latter term being appropriate when the payment is made in lieu of all other services under some ancient commutation. When the copyhold comes into the hands of the lord, it has been shown that he may re-grant it as copyhold, provided that he has created no common law interest in the land higher than a tenancy at will (o). Upon a grant of this kind he may alienate the tenement by parcels, and apportion the rents and services, but he must not alter them in any other way, as he is "custom's instrument" (p), and is not permitted Houill v. Earl of to create what would in effect be a new copyhold. "Ho Harrington 1893 2 ch.497. can neither add to nor diminish the ancient rent, nor make the minutest variation in other respects " (q). Where the tenants hold under a corn-rent, or an annual sum of money in lieu thereof, in the absence of a custom to the contrary the election is with the tenant to pay either in money or in corn (»). remedies. The lord may distrain for rents of assise (s), even Lord's though the land is in the hands of a lessee (t); and, under the statute 4 Geo. II. c. 28, he has the same remedies by Extinguishment. Effect of heriots and distress for rents of assise as may be had in the case of rents reserved upon a lease. The lapse of twelve years will now bar the lord's right to recover (u). For any arrears of rent the lord will be entitled to bring an action, and to recover arrears for six years (x); but in such action it seems that he must set out the particular lands (y). Quit-rents will cease to be payable on extinguishment of the copyhold tenure or enfranchisement of the land (≈); and they may be compulsorily extinguished by either the lord or the tenant or owner of the land under the provisions of the Copyhold Acts (a). There has been considerable discussion whether the Limitation Acts of 1833 and 1874 (b) apply to proceedings for the recovery of heriots and other casual rights or services due at uncertain intervals, which may extend over a longer time than the periods mentioned in those Acts. It should be observed that the old Statute of Limitation, 32 Hen. VIII. c. 2, did not apply to actions or proceedings for casual rights or services which might not occur within the period of limitation, or which might not occur more than once during the lord's or tenant's life, as heriots, fealty, customary fines and reliefs, or the like (c); as to rents and periodical services, including suit of court and personal services in the nature of rent, the time of limitation was fifty years. It seems that when a casual service like a heriot was part of an ancient rent-service, as in the case of heriot-service due by tenure and recoverable by distress, the right to the heriot might be barred by the loss of the rent of which it had formed a portion; but where the heriot or other casual service was not part of the rent, but only an incidental fruit of the tenure, as where it was (u) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27, s. 2; (x) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27, s. 42. (*) Post, c. xi. (a) 50 & 51 Vict. c. 73, s. 7. (b) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27; 37 & 38 Vict. c. 57. (c) Bevil's Case, 4 Rep. 8 a, 10 b. due by custom and not recoverable by an ordinary distress, then no period of limitation for recovery of the service or the arrears was fixed. The difficulty arose from the terms of the Act of 1833, by which it is declared that the word "rent," when occurring in that Act, "shall extend to all heriots, and to all other services and suits for which distress may be made," except where the nature of the provision or the context of the Act excludes such construction (d). The Act provides that no person shall make an entry or distress, or bring an action to recover any land or rent, but within twenty years next after the time at which the right to make such entry or distress, or to bring such action, shall have first accrued to some person through whom he claims, or if such right shall not have accrued to any person through whom he claims, then within twenty years next after the time at which the right shall have first accrued to the person making or bringing the same (e); and it declares that the right to bring an action to recover any rent shall be deemed to have first accrued, if the person claiming, or the person through whom he claims, shall in respect of the estate or interest claimed have been in receipt of such rent and shall while entitled thereto have discontinued such receipt, at the time of the discontinuance of possession, or at the last time at which the rent was so received, and if he claims under a conveyance from the person who was in receipt of the rent and no one shall have been in receipt of the rent under the conveyance, then the right to bring the action shall be deemed to have first accrued when the person claiming, or the person through whom he claims, became entitled to such receipt under the conveyance; and there are other provisions as to grants of estates and interests in expectancy, and titles under a forfeiture or breach of condition (f). The Act also provides that on the determination of the period (d) Sect. 1. (e) Sect. 2. (f) Sect. 3. limited by the Act, the right of the person to the land or rent, for which the action might have been brought, shall be extinguished when no action has been taken (g). The Act does not apply to rents reserved upon leases for years, but only to those which can exist as inheritances distinct from the land (as the copyholders' rents above mentioned), for which before the Act the person claiming might have had an assise or possessory action (h). In Owen v. De Beauvoir (i), it was held that the period within which an action for recovery of rent must be brought runs not from the time when the rent becomes due and remains unpaid, but from the last time at which it was paid. In the course of the arguments in that case it had been pointed out that if the Act were construed in that manner, heriots and rents becoming payable at longer intervals than the twenty years allowed by the Act might be extinguished without any default of the lord, if it happened that the intervals at which they became due exceeded twenty years; but in delivering the judgment of the Court of Exchequer, Parke, B., said: "But as to heriots, probably the answer to the objection may be that in a case similar to that now before us the word 'rent' would not include heriots; for though by the interpretation clause it is made to include them, yet that is only where the nature of the provision or the context does not exclude such a construction; and it may be that the injustice pointed out would afford grounds for holding that in the clause now under consideration the word 'rent' does not include heriots. A similar observation may be made upon the case of rents payable at greater intervals than twenty years." The same view of the matter was taken by the Court of Queen's Bench in the later case of Earl of Chichester v. Hall (k). There it appeared that freehold land was held by heriot, relief, and a quit-rent among other services; and the lord's right to (g) Sect. 34. (h) Grant v. Ellis, 9 M. & W. 113; Archbold v. Scully, 9 H. L. C. 360. (i) 16 M. & W. 547; S. C., 5 Exch. 166 (Ex. Ch.). (k) 17 L. T. 121. |