ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

722.

WIDENING OF ROAD-OWNERSHIP OF FILLED-IN DITCH.

(For Replies to this Query, see p. 159.)

The quick fence shown in section separates the grounds of a residence in a town under an Urban Council, from the highway. The ditch was filled up before the purchase of the property.

The Council now wish to widen the road to point A on section.

In computing the area of the strip required, what must be taken as the boundary between the road and the residence? Is it the stoving of the fence, the ditch being now part of the highway?

The strip of land in question is valuable and the ascertainment of the amount taken is of importance to the owner.

[blocks in formation]

The freeholder of a riverside wharf (on which there are no buildings) has put up a notice upon it that it is "To be Let or Sold." He has also put up a notice that "Rubbish may be deposited here." The gates are locked at night, and the key held by a neighbour, who lends it to any applicant.

1. Carts containing rubbish pass on to the wharf and are emptied. There is no supervision or payment made in respect of this rubbish, and the wharf is a public rubbish heap.

2. Permission has been given to a gravel merchant to load vessels with ballast from the wharf on payment of a royalty or quit rent of 2d. per

ton.

3. Permission has been given to a coke breeze merchant to land breeze on the wharf on payment of a royalty or quit rent of 2d. per ton.

4. Permission has been given to a steam roundabout owner to occupy part of the land for a weekly payment of £2.

There is no physical separation of one part from another, and all the

persons using the wharf are equally at liberty to go over any part of it. The owner exercises no supervision over the persons using it, and the accounts of the tolls are rendered by them, and accepted as correct by him without check.

(A) Is the owner liable for rates?

(B) Are any of the occupiers liable for rates?

The owner's view is that, as there is no exclusive occupation, the occupiers are not rateable, nor can he be regarded as occupier. Also that tolls or royalties or quit rents (which are profits) are not rateable. overseers' view is that the owner is occupier, and as such is liable.

The

724.

LEASE-COMMISSION ON VALUATION OF FIXTURES.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 160, 161.)

Some three years ago a gentleman took a lease of a house which contained a proviso that he should purchase certain fixtures at a valuation, and at the end of the tenancy the landlord should re-purchase them at their value at that time.

Some years before the end of the lease the lessee desired to assign his interest, and for that purpose put the house into the hands of the house agent who acted for his landlord at the time the lease was granted. The house agent found him a tenant, and in sending in his bill of charges, beyond the usual commission on the amount of the rent, he also included a charge of 5 per cent. on the value of the fixtures based on the original valuation.

Is he entitled to charge this 5 per cent. (or in fact anything) in respect of the fixtures? He was not instructed to value the fixtures; in fact they have not yet been valued as between the assignor and assignee.

My point is that, as the fixtures were a liability attached to the lease, the agent in charging his commission on finding a tenant for the lease, with, of course, all its liabilities, is not entitled to charge a commission upon such liabilities—in this case the fixtures-unless he is employed to value or dispose of them.

725.

LANDLORD AND TENANT-DILAPIDATIONS-LIABILITY FOR
STRUCTURAL REPAIRS.

(For Replies to this Query, see p. 161.)

A lessee of premises, consisting of a shop and dwelling-house of two floors, in the south-west district of London, holds them on lease for a term

of 27 years from September, 1875. The covenants to repair are as follows:

[ocr errors]

"And also shall and will from time to time and at all times during the said term hereby granted well and sufficiently repair uphold support * maintain glaze paint empty amend and keep the said demised premises "and every part thereof in by and with all and all manner of needful "and necessary repairs and amendments whatsoever when and so often as "need or occasion shall be or require."

The lessee further covenanted to surrender the premises as aforesaid. Generally speaking, the premises are now in a very bad state of repair. Among other items in a schedule of dilapidations served upon the lessee, the lessor's surveyor claims :

1. The taking down and rebuilding of a 9-inch flank external cementfaced wall, abutting upon a side street, from pavement to coping, measuring about 23 feet by 22 feet, together with the necessary work in connection herewith.

This wall is admittedly bulged at about the first floor level to an extent of about 6 inches in 12 feet, and there are two iron ties. Moreover, this bulging has seriously affected the stability of the structure, forcing out the wall-plates, &c.

2. The taking up of a floor supported on one side by a bressummer and post, renewing the bressummer which has sagged, and also the post, which is out of the upright, and relaying the floor level.

It may be assumed that the premises were old at the time of their demise, and there is no evidence regarding their condition at that time. Can these claims be enforced?

726.

COLLECTION OF TITHE RENT-CHARGE.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 162, 163.)

My firm collects the vicarial tithe rent-charge on behalf of the incumbent of a certain parish, and the usual application for payment is made through the post. One landowner, who is also the occupier, declines to remit, and says that if we want the money we can come and fetch it. Are we obliged to apply to a landowner in person? If so, what course should be adopted in the case where a landowner does not reside on the property out of which the tithe is payable?

Another point has also cropped up, and that is the right of a tithe-payer to deduct cost of remittance and postage from the amount due. Can he do this, or must he pay in full?

727.

PURCHASE OF SURPLUS LANDS BY RAILWAY COMPANYDEROGATION FROM GRANT.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 163, 164.)

A terrace of cottages in South London was built in 1884 on building leases, which are now held by several different persons.

The land on which the cottages are built was surplus land of a railway company, and was sold by them in 1868.

The freehold of the whole terrace belongs to one person.

In 1897 the railway company obtained powers to widen their line and to acquire these cottages.

The company have only purchased a small plot of land with a workshop thereon at one end of the terrace, which they purchased from the freeholder and one lessee. The latter still owns two adjoining houses. The railway company do not propose to acquire any further portion of the property.

They have built arches and a high retaining wall close up to the back yards of the cottages, thus materially interfering with the light and air to them.

Neither the freeholder nor the lessee was aware (when they agreed to sell) that their remaining property would be injuriously affected by the intended works.

Can the freeholder and lessees claim compensation on any of the following grounds:

1. Because part of the property has been taken and nothing has been allowed for injuriously affecting the remainder; or,

2. Because the site was surplus land of the railway, and therefore the vendors cannot derogate from their own grant;

Or can compensation be claimed on any other ground?

728.

BOUNDARY WALL-LIABILITY TO REPAIR.

(For Replies to this Query, see pp. 164, 165.)

A, the owner of a house and garden having a long boundary wall, is the owner of such wall, which is in a very decayed and dangerous condition. It leans 16 inches out of the vertical over the neighbour's (B's) land, and makes nearly a quarter of an acre of B's land dangerous to walk over. B has given A notice to remove the danger, but A pays no attention to B's notices. My difficulty is to know the best way in which B can legally compel A to remove the danger.

729.

LANDLORD AND TENANT-DILAPIDATIONS-LANDLORD'S
SURVEYOR'S FEES.

(For Replies to this Query, see p. 165.)

I was lately called in to advise upon a claim for dilapidations in respect of a house under a 99 years' lease having about 3 years to run.

I advised my client to do the work claimed-or most of it-and it is now nearly completed.

My client has now received a claim from the landlord for solicitor's costs and surveyor's fees for preparing the claim and notice.

There is no reference in the lease to paying any costs in the event of notice to repair being served.

It seems to me this claim could hardly be sustained, and I should like to know the opinion of other surveyors on the point.

730.

LANDLORD AND TENANT-SIX MONTHS' NOTICE-LUNAR OR CALENDAR MONTHS.

(For a Reply to this Query, see p. 166.)

A tenant of a farm held it, on a yearly tenancy expiring on May 13th, under an agreement which states that the tenancy is subject to "six months' notice in writing given by either party," to expire at the end of the first or any subsequent years. The landlord gives notice in writing to the tenant on November 21st to quit May 13th. The tenant refuses to accept the notice on the grounds that the length of time is too short, and not "six months' notice," and he states that the notice would have to to be given prior to November 11th. The district is the county of Durham, and the term days are November 23rd and May 13th, the first half-yearly payment of rent being due on November 23rd, as shown in the agreement. The landlord contends that six months' notice-from term day to term day-upwards of six lunar months has been given, and that the notice is in order. It should be noted that the agreement does not stipulate calendar months.

Is the notice good, or is it insufficient in point of time?

731.

REPLANTING WOODLANDS.

(For Replies to this Query, see p. 166.)

Is it desirable, considering loss of time and the question of providing game coverts, to delay for a period of years the replanting of woodlands on which the timber (conifers and hardwoods) has been cut down, and if so, for how long, and why?

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »