or not taking out administration. If that point upon the ge'neral question is settled, I shall not be at all inclined to overturn or contradict it, especially in the case of the poor's set tlement, which it is always best to ascertain and reduce to precision; and it is proper stare decisis in cases of this na ⚫ture.' It is objected, that Daniel Harrison had no legal pos session. But this possession is either by right or by wrong and it was a possession of twenty years: if it was by righ the objection is at an end; and a twenty years enjoyme and continuance, even upon a possession by wrong, gives legal title upon an ejectment even against the rightful owne And after such a length of possession, one would be inclin to presume as much as is possible. Now here it is possib that Daniel Harrison and his wife might have some graut assignment from William Fido in his life-time, or some oth regular and rightful title to the possession which they took this tenement; so that their possession might possibly h been a rightful one. Burrow's Sett. Cus. 444.

If a person resides on an estate given to him by a relati for a series of years without interruption, he will thereby a settlement, although no formal conveyance of the estate ever executed.--thus in the K. v. the Inhabitants of Butter Hil. Ter. 36 Geo. 3, two justices removed 4 children f Kingsley to Butterton, both in the county of Stafford. sessions, on appeal, confirmed the order, subject to the The father o nion of the court, on the following case. paupers, being settled in Butterton, and residing in King under a certificate from Butterton about the year 1770 ma the daughter of Ralph Oakden, who also resided in the p of Kingsley. Oakden, in consequence of the marriage, ga the pauper's father a part of a piece of land in Kingald which he was seized in fee; but it did not appear that he executed any conveyance of it. The father of the paupe mediately built a house upon the laud, which cost him a 1001. and he resided in it for 14 or 15 years without p any rent or acknowledgment to Oakden, who lived in a early adjoining. He then removed to another house same parish, and let the house he had built to a tenant, ing the rent to the time of his death, which happened three years after he quitted it. After his death his eld and heir (who was not removed by this order) continued ceive the rent, and mortgaged the premises for 421, 188. den died before his son-in-law, the father of the paupers ing another daughter, and having had a son who died in ther's life time, leaving children, now living; but no cla ever made or rent demanded for this house since it was either by Oakden in his lifetime, or by any other perso his death. In support of the order of sessions, it was c ed, 1st. that no settlement was gained by the father of t pers by residence upon his own estate; because he had x itle, but resided there merely as tenant by sufferance, an

that there was no alteration in this respect by the descent to the son, even if the possession had been adverse to the right owner, which it was not; for at the time when the order of removal was made, the possession had not continued twenty years. But by lord Kenyon Ch. J. (stopping the counsel on the other side) As twenty years have nearly elapsed since the time when this land was given to the pauper's father, and as no claim has ever been made either on the pauper or his father, the court ought not to permit the title to this estate to be de termined, on an order of removal. The strict rules to be ob served on the trials of ejectments, ought not to be applied to settlement cases. After such a length of possession as this, perhaps a conveyance may be presumed to have been execu ted, for in the. K. v. Cold Ashton where there had been a possession for nearly twenty years, Wilmot J. said there ought not to be a nicety of computation in a settlement case, but the court may presume a conveyance. And even if no conveyance were executed to the pauper's father, and a claim were now made by Oakden's heir at law, he would perhaps be told in a court of equity, that, as Oakden stood by while the pauper's father built on this land and treated it as his own, he could only resume the possession on certain terms. Grose J. What was said by Mr. J. Wilmot in the case of Cold Ashton, is extremely applicable to this case. Lawrence J. I remember a case some years ago, in which lord Mansfield would not suffer a man to recover, even in ejectment, where he had stood by and seen the defendant build on his land. Both orders quashed. 8 Term Rep. 554.

absence.

Bat a wife cannot, by residing on her own estate, gain a Wife residing Bettlement thereby distinct from her husband....Thus in the K. on her own 1.St.Mary Berkhamstead, Ea. 8 Geo. 2, a man having acquir. estate in the eda settlement at Aldbury, ran away and left his wife and three husband's children chargeable there. Afterwards the wife had two houses devised to her by her mother in Northchurch, one in fee, and the other for life;' the wife and three children went and lived in one of them at Northchurch.---THE COURT was of opinion, that the mother did not, in this case, gain a settlement for her, children while the father was living;' for that he being the head of the family, the children must derive their settlement through him, and be in right of his wife had a title to live in Northchurch; but the wife's inhabitancy is not the jahabitancy of the husband.' 2 Sess. Cas. 182.

If a woman who is entitled to an estate in fee, does not during her life reduce it into possession, the husband after her de. sease will not be intitled thereto, as tenant by the curtesy; consequently her heir at law, by residing thereon for forty days after her decease, will gain a settlement. This was decided in the case of The K. v. the Inhabitants of Great Faringdon, Ea. Ter. 36 Geo. 3, which was as follows :---Two justices by an

See supra, p. 304.

order, removed the pauper and his family from Stanford to Great Faringdon; on appeal the sessions, confirmed the order, and stated the following case for the opinion of the court. The pauper was born at Stanford, and lived there till Michaelmus 1771, when he hired himself at Abingdon statute fair, to a person of Great Faringdon, at 7 guineas a year, and continued in his service till the year 1782, when he went back to Stanford, and married. Upon his marriage he went to re side upon a cottage in Stanford, belonging to his grandfather which his grandfather agreed to make over to him; and a writ ten agreement to that purpose was offered in evidence by th appellants; but not being stamped, it was refused by th court of sessions. The pauper fitted up the said cottage: his own expence, and resided upon it ever since, in uninterrup ed possession as his own, till the time of his removal in 179 without paying any rent, or any thing being ever claimed him by any person in respect of the possession thereof.. T grandfather of the pauper died in December 1783, leaving t pauper's mother, his only child, and married to the paupe father. The pauper's mother died in January 1786, leaving husband, and the pauper, her eldest son and heir at law, b now living. In support of the order of sessions, it was insis that the pauper's mother was seized of the premises in questi so as to entitle her husband to be tenant by the curtesy,and c sequently that the pauper himself had then no estate in right which he could gain a settlement in Stanford. By lord Ken Ch. J. No interest passed to the pauper by the unstamped ag ment it was not legally in evidence before the sessions. Ti on the death of the grandfather, this estate descended to daughter, who might have reduced it into possession; but did not: and in order to make the husband tenant by the curi there must be a seizin in fact in the wife: then as the daug the pauper's mother, did not reduce the estate into possess it descended to the pauper, who is seized in fee.—Order of sions quashed. 6 Term Rep. 679.

plac The wif

But although the wife cannot by residing on her own e in her husband's absence, gain a settlement distinct from husband, yet she cannot be removed from the estate. Th the K. v. Aythorp Rooding, Mic. 30 Geo. 2. the pau husband was settled at White Rooding, from which went away, and deserted his wife and children. White Rooding, and went, with her children, and lived days without her husband, in a copyhold tenement o • husband's own at Aythorp Rooding.' She was removed thence to the parish of White Rooding. THE COURT unanimously of opinion, that although the wife could gain a settlement for her husband by residing forty days fis own estate, yet that she was irremoveable from the perty of her husband; upon being only likely to become.c able; for she had a natural, or at least a matrimonial ri. go to her husband's estate and as there did not appear

any dissent of her husband, it was rather to be presumed that he consented. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 412.

So in the K. v. Leeds, Ea. 4 Geo. 3, Joseph Howe, husband of Ann Howe the pauper, took a tenement of 107. a-year at Blackfordby, and resided there above forty days; afterwards he took a tenement at Leeds, of above 10. a-year, and went and resided there for above forty days, leaving his wife at Blackfordby; then he returned to Blackfordby, and staid with his wife there twenty-seven days; he then took his wife to and left her at her brother's in Worcestershire, and returned to Blackfordby, and locked up the doors of his house there and left the key with a neighbour, and gave him directions to get the hay for him off the tenement; then, without ever having resided in Blackfordby, after taking his wife to her brother's, went to Hunslet, a hamlet in the parish of Leeds which maintains its own poor, and continued there ever since. The hay was got for him, and remained upon the premises, and was his property. He had wrote to the person with whom he had left the key, to deliver the possession of the tenement to the landlord; but possession was not delivered. On the day before the appeal, he received the key from the said person, and had it in his possession at the time of the appeal. His wife having afterwards returned to Blackfordby, and wanting relief, they removed her by order to Leeds, as the place of her settlement. sessions were of opinion, that Leeds was the place of her set'tlement, as Joseph Howe had not resided forty days upon his 'tenement at Blackfordby, since he resided upon his tenement 'at Leeds...-Lord Mansfield, Mr. Justice Wilmot, and Mr. Justice Yates, were all of opinion, that Joseph Howe himself could not have been removed from his own tenement at Blackfordby, the lease whereof was unexpired; and if they could not have removed the man himself from his own, it follows consequently that they could not remove his wife and children so long as it remained his. Indeed, if his lease at Blackfordby bad been at an end, his last forty days residence at Leeds might have borne a different consideration; but the justices have certainly been premature in removing them from Blackfordby, whilst his interest there subsisted, and from whence he himself would at that time have been irremovable. Both orders quashed. Burrow's Sett. Cases, 524. Black. Rep. 466.

The

So a person residing on premises to which he is entitled Residing on an by virtue of an agreement, will, although the agreement has not estate, under an been speciacally performed gain a settlement. Thus in the K. argeement net specifically per 1. Lopen, Tr. 28 Geo. 3, the great-grandfather of the paupers, formed. being seized for the term of his own life of a copyhold estate at South Petherton, which premises were subject by the custom of the manor to a widow's free bench, married a woman, who precious to the marriage, entered into a bond reciting the intended marriage; and that she would, in case she happened to survive, be entitled to her free bench; and that she had agreed, in case she should become entitled, that she would permit Thomas Gifford, and Sasanna his wife, (grand-daughter of her

intended husband), their executors, administrators, and assigns, to hold and enjoy, and for their own benefit to receive and take the rents, issues, and profits of all the said copy hold premises (except two rooms and a chamber, which she reserved to her own use, and also except a certain quantity of cyder to be made at the expence of Gifford and his wife); provided that Gifford and his wife should from time to time repair the roof of the two rooms, and keep the same habitable; and also with in one month next after the death of her intended husband, fur nish her with a bedstead, one table,and an iron pot; and that sh had also agreed, that, in case she should marry again, where by Gifford and his wife would be deprived of the premises, an of all interest therein, she would pay the sum of 60%. within on monthafter such second marriage. And the bond was con ditioned for the performance of these articles. About f years afterwards the husband died, leaving this woman h widow, who gave up the possession of the said premises "South Petherton, to Gifford and his wife,' who were th settled at Lopen according to the stipulations in the bot and they continued therein until the time of their death But Gifford, who survived Susanna, by his will devised premises to trustees to be sold for the payment of his debts, a to divide the surplus amongst his children the present paupe The premises were afterwards sold according to the directi and for the purposes mentioned in the will; and the paup were removed from South Petherton to Lopen, by an order two justices: which order was confirmed by the sessions an appeal....But by THE COURT. This bond was made in c sideration of marriage, and it will bind all parties concerned it; it is an instrument obligatory at law :' and therefore it is necessary to consider, whether a court of equity would or wo not have decreed a specific performance of the contract. material too, to consider that in this case the husband mi have defeated the widow's claim,if he had chosen; for he did die seised, she would not have been entitled to free her ber Then we must take it, that he held the estate till his death the faith that the widow would afterwards deliver up the pos ❝sion to the father and mother of the paupers. Therefore, u these circumstances, the parties to be beacfited by the b "would be entitled to a specific performance of the contract.' there is another circumstance in the case still more decisive ; widow herself was so satisfied, that she was bound by 'bond, that on the death of her husband she actually deliv up the possession according to her contract;' and from time the pauper's father continued in possessiou, unde idea that he was entitled under the bond. This man 'possession, had a good title against all the world bu widow; nay the widow herself was so far bound by the i that she could not have recovered in ejectment. So il had not only an equitable title, but he had also the p sion; and no person could have recovered the estate from Both orders quashed. 2 Term Rep. 577.