an easement or the grant of an incorporeal hereditament, which could only be effectually granted by deed.

But even were a deed executed, Mr. Justice Bayley thought that the rector had not power to grant any privilege, except for the particular burial then about to take place. The rector has the freehold of the church for public purposes, not for his own emolument; to supply places for burial from time to time, as the necessities of his parish require, and not to grant away vaults, which cannot be done unless a faculty has been obtained.

Mr. Justice Littledale thought that the right said to have been granted was merely a privilege to make a vault and bury there; the right claimed is an easement giving a sole and exclusive privilege of burial. This must be prescribed for as appurtenant to an ancient messuage. Prescription presupposes a grant, and there was little difficulty in saying that the rector had no power to grant the privilege claimed. In Francis v. Ley, (a) it is said, that neither the ordinary himself, nor the churchwardens, can grant licence of burying to any within the church, but the parson only, "because the soil and freehold of the church is only in the parson, and in none other:" but in Gibson's Codex (b) this is denied to be the true reason, for it would apply equally to the churchyard, but that the ecclesiastical laws have appointed the incumbent as the proper judge of the fitness or unfitness of any particular person to have the privilege of being buried in the church. The incumbent, therefore, may exercise a discretion in each particular instance where appli

cation is made for leave to bury in the church, but he has no power to grant to another the privilege of burying there whomsoever he pleases. (a)

A man may prescribe that he is tenant of an ancient messuage, and ought to have separate burial in such vault within the church. (b)

V. TITLES OF SLAVES AND COLONIAL PROPERTY.

Although no slave can exist in England, (c) yet slavery is clearly recognized as existing in other countries; (d) and if a slave return to a colony in which he was formerly a slave, he will again become a slave. (e)

In most colonies slaves are real estate, and are assets for the payment of debts and sometimes of legacies. In some few colonies slaves are personal estate, in others of a mixed nature, and in some part of others they are annexed to the soil.

When they are real estate, they are subject to all its incidents. Wives will be dowable of them, and they may be entailed, mortgaged, or leased, and are susceptible of all the modifications of other real

estate.

When they are real estate, they must generally be conveyed by deed or writing, as in most of the islands, acts similar to the Statute of Frauds (ƒ) have been passed; and the deed or writing must be registered

(a) And see 3 Inst. 202; Degge's Parson's Counsellor, 176, 6th edit. (b) Com. Dig. tit. Cemetery, B. (c) Somerset v. Stewart, Lloft. 1. (d) Somerset v. Stewart, ubi sup.; Madrazo v. Willes, 3 B. & A. 353;

Forbes v. Cockrane, 3 Dow. & Ry. 679; 2 B. & C. 448.

(e) Grace's case, 2 Hagg. Adm. Rep. 94.

(f) 29 Car. II. c. 3.

according to the form prescribed by the acts of the different islands for that purpose.

Slaves are real estate in the islands of Jamaica, Barbadoes, Granada, Tobago, Bermuda, Antigua, St. Vincent, the Virgin Islands, St. Lucia, Demerara, and Berbice.

They are personal estate in Dominica, the Bahamas, Montserrat, St. Kitt's, and Trinidad. (a)

By the 5 Geo. IV. c. 113, (b) which consolidates all the other acts on the subject of slaves, it is enacted, that in all conveyances, mortgages, and charges of slaves, the names and descriptions of the slaves, according to the latest registration in Great Britain, shall be set forth either in the body of the deed, or in a schedule thereto, and all deeds which do not comply with the provisions of the act will be invalid.

In examining abstracts of property of this description, therefore, care must be taken to see that the requisites of the act have been complied with, as assurances of slaves are frequently invalid from inattention to this point.

Recoveries of lands and other property in the colonies were at one time usual in the Court of Common Pleas in this country; and they will be valid, although it appear on the face of the recovery that the lands are situate in a colony. (c) It has been doubted, however, how far such a recovery is valid, to bar an estate tail, unless the validity of the recovery for such pur

(a) See 6 Park. & Stew., Cont. Byth. 478-484, where the subject is fully considered, and the local acts stated.

(b) s. 37.

(c) Smale dem. Brembridge ten. 1 Bing.72.S.C.nom. Bayley dem. Brembridge ten. 7 Moo. 372. Robert Hinde dem. John Hinde ten. Bland vouchee, 2 Br. & Bing. 7.

pose has been established by the local laws of the colony. (a)

It may perhaps be laid down, that a recovery of lands situate in a colony will be permitted to be suf fered in the Court of Common Pleas in this country; that such recovery would effectuate all the purposes of a recovery, and would be supported in the colonial courts; but that to avoid all doubt in the colonies where recoveries still exist, which are believed to be only the Bahamas and Bermuda, it will be better to suffer the recovery in the proper colonial court, and in every other colony to prepare a deed, and register it according to the forms prescribed by the local act, and thus obtain all the benefit of a recovery. For this purpose the local laws should be consulted. (b)

VI. TITLES OF COMPANY'S SHARES.

New River shares are real estate; (c) and as the New River runs through three counties, Hertford, Middlesex, and London, three fines are necessary to convey them, where this assurance is required. (d)

Shares in the Vauxhall Bridge Company are also real estate; (e) but shares of this nature are frequently made personal estate by the act forming the company.(f)

(a) Chalm. Ca. & Op. 174; but see Stokes Laws of the Colonies, 185; Howard on Purchases in the West Indies, 105; 7 Park. & Stew. Cont. Byth. 140.

(b) And see Howard's Colonial Laws, passim.

(c) Buckridge v. Ingram, 2 Ves. jun. 652.

(d) See 2 P. Wms. 127. (e) Ex parte Vauxhall Bridge Company, 1 Gl. & Jam. 101.

(f) See ante, p. 132.

VII. TITLES UNDER THE LAND-TAX ACTS.

When the land-tax is purchased by a particular tenant, and some of the lands are settled to one class of uses and others to a different class of uses, and there is one entire contract for the redemption of the landtax; as when some of the lands are held in fee and others for a particular estate, and there is one contract only for the purchase of the land-tax of both estates; a title derived under a sale made under the powers given by the land-tax acts, will be defective. (a)

It should always be seen that the persons stated to have redeemed had a right so to do; (b) and that the requisites mentioned in the acts have been complied with; and in particular that the sale, mortgages, and grants under the act, have been made under the authority and with the consent of the commissioners for the time being acting in the execution of the act; (c) and where the sale has been effected by a tenant for life, that the proper notice has been given to the persons beneficially entitled in remainder. (d)

It should also be seen that the consideration has been duly paid into the Bank of England, according to the directions contained in the act as to payment of purchase-money under the act. (e)

By the 42 Geo. III. c. 116, (f) the surveyor-general of the land revenues is empowered to contract for sale of the crown lands to redeem the land-tax.

A person who has entered into an agreement for the

(a) 1 Prest. Abs. 89.

(b) See 42 Geo. III. c. 116.

(c) See 42 Geo. III. c. 116. s. 54. (d) See 42 Geo. III. c. 116. s. 96.

(e) 42 Geo. III. s. 116. s. 98. And see Hicks v. Morant, 3 Yo. & Jer. 286.

(f) s. 133.