« PreviousContinue »
JT. T. FVarblingion, Ea. 26 Ceo. 3, the father of the pauj came into the parish of Havant with a certificate from JVarblH tun: afterwards, the lord of the manor of Havant granted kirn ami his heirs, hy copy of court-roll, a parcel of the wi gronnd within the parish of Havant, which did not: pt<earcTH have been granted before: the pauper's father built a ho thereon, and lived therein for several years as the owner tht of: he afterwards borrowed 100/. and for securing the ss surrendered the premises; and on the money not being pi the mortgagee was admitted: after his death, his heir at •old the equity of redemption to the mortgagee for 20/. 1 'It appeared from the copy of the court-roll, that the paup 'father was admitted on the lord's grant to one parcel of I 'called the Gravel land, and in the copy of his admission v 'these words, " fine one shilling, heriotonc shilling, quh.i 1 oite shilling." It appeared that the lord of the manor used to grant parcels of the waste of the said manor for si pecuniar)' considerations, and he was never known to make grant without a pecuniary consideration.—The Court incl to the opinion that this was a purchase *, for by IFtllcs J. case states a grant by the lord of the manor, of a small pare waste: however small the consideration might be, 1 should bold it a purchase, for the smallncss of the consideration is in tcrial. p'rom all the facts stated in this case,it appears thai grant was made for a small pecuniary consideration ; then not a voluntary grant; audit being a purchase under 30(. it not givea settlement since the statute of 9 Geo. 1. c.~7. Suj! ing it be true, as contended, that the fine is a fee for alien at all eyents that is no answer to thchcriot and rent reset for if a person meant to make a free gift, he would not Tc a heviot or rent; but both arc here reserved.—A&hkvrst « think there appears sufficient in this case to shew that it' purchase. A purchase is the acquisition of something fo equivalent. It is a quid pro quo. If there is a valuable c deration, it is a purchase in the legal sense; and it makt difference whether it comes in the form of a present pavi or in any other way. Here there appears to be a quitl pr< from the state of the case, and from the entries in the court, which have been read: for there was a fine paid admission, and there was a valuable reservation of a heriu rent,' and that is a sufficient foundation for a purchase there having been a consideration, it cannot be called a -. tarv v;ift. 1 Term Hep. 241.
tint a copyhold tenement, which, with the fine an J fee< is of the value of 30.'. is sufficient to gain a settlement, alt the parish ofiicers may have paid part of the money to pi fine and fees.—Thus in St. Paul's Hidden r. Kcmjiton
MGro. 1, (here wasspecial order slated at sessions: ./. pnrrsiies t copyhold tenement ii\ St. Paul's Waldea, which, with the Doe and fees paid to the court, amounted to thirty pounds; lot it appeared by the tame order, that the officers uf the panth uf Knap/on had given him 40'. tj wards paying his tine and] therefore it »a> insisted that this was fraudulent, and not d purchase within tbe statute sufficient to gain a settlement, ut Tuc Wuole Covht said, that they could not take notice » i being Irauduleut, unless the justices had adjudged it so. > tie ordtr was confirmed. Foleu,13&, So if a man purchase a tenement for 3 )l. he will by residing jtlcwoi gain a settlement, although the greater part of the puriJase-oouey was advanced byafriend, to whom he mortgaged the sraiisesis a security.— l'hus in the K. ». TedJ'ord, Tf.&Sjti Geo. i. the pauper, being settled at Tidfurtl, contrac ted for a house .m4 tertilage in IVaddiugham. for 39/. which was conveyed to 'kstsnd bis heirs.accordingly, in consideration of that sum; r paid only Ql- and one Iiaac Brittul paid the remain-, order. The conveyance was dated 2d rented (ill the 19;h of Mai/; and upon the tgthug, tbe pauper mortgaged the premises to Jjm'vaise fur oue thousand years, under a proviso to be • qid M of tbe money in a year. The pauper continued in i about four years alter the mortgage; then liri*tul , by tirtue ot tbe said mortgage and a release of this 'of redemption. Then the inhabitants, of lyadilinghtiut curid the pau.per, beiug i;ut of possession^ to be removed 10 tjerd.—By lord Hard^icke (Jh, J. This is ancvr case. The wion is, \V htther it is within the 9 Geo. 1. c. 7. ? and it dues appear to me to be within this act; lor the act is confined ■rchasti under 201. bond fide paid ; consequently, if the 'bad such consideration of 30f. buna fide paid to him, it not within this act. Now iu the present case the cotiiidcra« J'kiswm 39/. and wa-i buna fide paid to the vendor. And it uld be pretty hard to say that the justices li^d a power upon iact tu enqfcire whether the purchaser borrowed the mouby It i- a common case to borrow money to make pur; nothing is more frequent than lo borrow a sum to make i tbe price. — The other judges concurriu«, the orders removIflu)paupers from IVaddingham to llctij'ord were quashed. *>ett. Cat. 57.
i case of the K. ». the Inhabitant t of Chniley, Jr. o. 3, which was as follov • :— The Sessions, on ap. i order of two justices for thu removal of a pan. ily from ChaUcy to Mewicke, and stated the fol. for tile court:—In the month of Nuvember 1786, iper itting legally settled in Nenicke, agreed to purchase' 'urd Ua:e a copyhold messuage in Chuilei/, which Hide i to one dtjipard, to secure the sum of the interest ot Halt therein the sum of KM.
and in pursuance of that agreement, the-psuper paid the sum of IQt. to Hale, who, on the 4th of Nov. 1786, surrendered^ the said copyhold premises to the pauper, subject to the conditional sin-render which had before been made by Hale for securing the f>Ol. to Coppard. In May 1790, the pauper agreed with one Heath to borrow of him the sum of 50/. on the security of the sitid copyhold estate, in order to pay off the mortgage to Coppard; and ' on the 8th day of May the conditienal surrender 'of the premises to Coppard was duly discharged in the couvt* roll, by a warrant under the hand of Capjiard, acknowledg.
ihg that he had received of the pauper the said sum of 50/. and 'all interest due thereon.' On the said 8th day of May the pauper made a conditional surrender of the premises to Heath, for securing the re-payment of the sum of 50/. which Heath advanced pursuant to his agreement, to discharge the tnort. gage to Coppard. On the 4th of Nov. 1795, ' the paupet « sold the said copyhold estate for 80/. being 30/. beyond tnt 'amount of the mortgage' to whieh it remained subject. Th( pauper resided in the cottage from the time of his purchase until the re.sale.—By Lord Kenyan, Ch. J. (after argument) I an not able to distinguish this case from that of the K. T. Tedford, By the statute 9 Geo. 1. c. 7, no settlement can be gained bj residing on an estate that is purchased for less than 30/. Butil was decided in that case, that though the party cannot pay tkt purchase money out of his own funds, yet if he can .borrow- H oa credit, that is sufficient to satisfy the words of the act of parfia. ffient. It has been argued that this was only an assignment of the original mortgage from the first to the second mortgager, and that the mortgage interest never was in the pauper: and to be sure, if that interest never were in the pauper, it would bi difficult to say that it conferred a settlement on him, Then it was said,'that though the mortgage interest did pass through tb« pauper, it was merely the mode of transferring a copyhold interest from one person to.another, and that this interest did not Tist in the pauper. But the latter part of the proposition is not true; the estate did not pass immediately ftom the first to the second mortgagee : there was an interval, though a, short one in which the estate was vested in the pauper, and he conveyed it to the mortgagee. An attempt, however, was made to' nift tiogtiish this case from that of the K. v. Tedford, by saying that there the legal estate was in the pauper for a longer period than in the present case: but that cannot furnish any'irrat ground of distinction. IrHhis had been a freehold estate, eVe^T judgment signed against the pauper, and properly docketed1, would hate attached on this estate. Although, when read this case, 1 hesitated whether this could confer a settlement on the pauper, jet upoir consideration, I think it is more safe to support the decision in the K. v. Tedford, from wfieK I think, this cannot fairly be distinguished, and which hasfleim
adopted in subsequent cases, than to introduce nice arioVarfifi"
. ... * -.cbvu vMOtv tii) distinctions: therefore the order of sessions, quashing the original order of removal, must be affirmed.—By The Court, ciiei of sessions confirmed. 6 Term Rep. 755.
But the purchase of an estate subject to a mortgage is not sufficient for the purpose of gaining a settlement, unless the money actually paid for the equity of redemption amounts to 30/.—Thus in the A*, v. Ma/tingky, Tr. 17 Geo. 3, a man and his family came to Mallingley with a certificate from Ileckfidd. Whilst he continued to reside in Mallingley, he contracted for ■ lie purchase of a copyhold tenement in Matlingley. which had tan, previous to such contract, mortgaged for 32/. which mortgage money was unpaid. The contract was, that he should jay 39/. 17f. 6d. for the said tenement, which sum was include of the 32/. due on the mortgage. In pursuance of such contact he paid the sum of 71. 17s. 6d. which, with the sum o(J2/ to be also paid to the mortgagee, made the aforesaid »onof 38/. 17*. Cd. lie was afterwards admitted to the preo«i on the surrender, subject to a mortgage surrender for seWMgthe 32/. and afterwards entered into possession of the PnMSB,and continued possessed thereof for four years, during' »kidliijie he paid two years interest on the mortgage, which «s all the interest he ever paid. He never paid off the uiortP|wtoney, but delivered up the possession of the premises to ^mortgagee. The only question in this case was,' Whether 'the pauper had bona fide paid 3Ctf. for the purchase of this es'htte.''—And b> The Court, This is not a purchase for 30/. out only for 7/. 17*. 6d. for the pauper only purchased the inlaw! of the mortgagor subject to the mortgage. Now the esutewas mortgaged for 32/. therefore the mortgagor's interest, object to that, was only 71. \7s. 61. which was the whole of iper's purchase. 'Tis true, if a man purchase an es. JO/, bona fide paid, the Court will not enquire how he suocdit, nor whether he mortgaged the estate for the payment **i tut here the purchaser did not bona fide pay 30/. In order constitute a purchase within the statute, the sum of 30/. must aotoaly be paid irOpoint of fact, but it must be bond fide paid. J Ttm Rtp. is, f
And if the original purchase be under 30/. no subsequent improvements will be sufficient for the purpose of gaining a settleThus in the K. v. Dunchurch, Hit. 6 Geo. 3, a certificatei Dunchurch, together with his wife, were joint pur. l house, y ard, and garden-place at South Kilicorth; r the purchase thereof 19/. and upwards. They laid : 15/. more, to put it in repair; audbuilt a new shop <H part of the premises; and was taxed after the rate of a tene*Mof 30/. value, for the first two years after it was bought: ■J the husband resided in the said purchased premises till the •'•'*.ef his death. After his death, his widow continued in pos•>.un of the said house and premises for about ten months;
t to service for about live years; she then return'i at South KUworlh, and soen after sold part of
life premises, reserving part to herself; but removing ont of her own house tn another house, in (he same parish, and becoming actually chargeable, she was removed from thence by order of two justices to Dunchurch, the place which gave the certificate, and the sessions confirmed that order—H was moved to quash these orders; and the whole question was, Whether this ■atonum vcas a bona fide purchaser of an estate of SOL value?*-And bj The Couut. Here the husband and wife appear to have been joint purchasers, twenty five years ago: they took jointly, and by entirety; not by moieties. If so, she'can 6nly stand in the Same situation as her husband did: which is that of * purchaser. Now the act takes the value of the purchase, from the purchase, money actually paid. And no money afterwards luid out, an iiake the prior purchase to have been of a greater value than it really tsas at the time of making it. Subsequent improve, merits cannot be considered with a retrospect.—It was therefore held, that she gained no settlement by this purchase, and tfc< orders were con firmed. Burrow'i Sett. Cus. 553.
But if a single woman purchases a tenement, and afterwardmarries, the husband gains a settlement by a residence on tht estate, and communicates the same to his wife, although thi original purchase money was under 30/.-.-Thus in the K. v. 11 'mingtony TV. 6 Geo. 3. a single woman purchased a lcaseholi tenement in the parish of MicJcleton, for the sum of six pound* for the remainder of a term of one thousand years. Sheresidei in the said tenement for about nine'years, and then married 'after such intermarriage she and her husband resided in the tf •nemcnt sixteen years, when the husband died; after her hu1 band's death she continued to reside in the said tenement for sr Teral years, and at la?t swtd the same for six pounds: after tri sale she was removed from the said parish of Micfcleton to t!: parish of Ilmijiglon.—Unt The Court were of opinion, th the settlement was at Micklclon, for the husband gained a sri dement at Mickielon by 40 days residence upon his own estate and his settlement communicated itself to the wife; therefor •both the orders were quashed. BurrowVfl&eU. Cos. 566.
But when a pauper purchased a leasehold tenement forlessrhs 30/. and afterwards conveyed the whole term to one, dim to let tliepriTnises, and out of the rents and profits to pay hhosd 10/. advanced thereon, and then to apply the rents and pro*' to the separate use of the pauper's wife during her life, aod al terwards to the pauper's own use for life, if he survived hefjtn afterwards amongst thc'ir children: and the trustee suflerea A pauper to continue to reside in the house for about 40 days, ti becoming chargeable to the parish -he was removed; it tzrts extended tfiat although the pauper could not gain ascttleraent'intil Own rijht, in respect of the purchase being under 30/. jretatM the conveyance in trust he took anew estate in the prenrisffl b act of law, by virtue of which a settlement might be acquiril either in his character of mortgagor in possession, or by vjrtn of the equiteiile interest of his wife in it. But Th* Court hell