Professional Notes

of the living by death would not, in my opinion, be entitled to compensation for tillages or other acts of husbandry incident to preparation for crops which have not been sown on glebe arable lands, which have been in the occupation of the outgoing incumbent, or his representatives in the event of his death.

E. P. SQUAREY, Past-President.

I know of nothing that would deprive the vicar of his right as an outgoing tenant to be paid for the usual acts of cultivation, but I think the law does not contemplate a vicar trading as a farmer by occupying so large an area of land, and I can imagine difficulties arising therefrom. Cripps' statement in his Law of Church and Clergy makes the right to the payment for crops growing at the decease of an incumbent depend on 28 Henry VIII., c. 11, and it does not seem unreasonable to include all acts of cultivation in the phrase "manured and sown" in relation to a wheat crop.

J. HENRY SABIN, Professional Associate of Council.

It is laid down in Woodfall (Edition of 1898, p. 791) that "Parochial clergy are entitled to emblements; but a parson who resigns his living " is not entitled to emblements, although his lessees and sub-tenants are." Thus a marked distinction is made between the effect of "death" and of "resignation."

JOHN LOOKER, Fellow.

Replies to Query 780 (Vol. XI., p. 347).

QUARRY-STONE USED FOR MAINTAINING RATEABLE PREMISESRATEABILITY.

In the case of the extensive quarries of both building and road stone on the Southam Estate (late Lord Ellenborough's), which I represent, we lease them to a quarryman and purchase from him the stone required or the estate.

GEO. W. SADLER, Fellow.

I have not had so large an experience in rating cases as to enable me to give an authoritative opinion.

It would appear, however, to my mind that the quarries are liable to be rated at on the basis of such value as they would be let for to a hy pothetical tenant. The stone got from the quarries is of value even if only to keep up the roads and buildings on the estate. There is nothing to prevent the stone being used off the estate, and the mere fact that no profit is made on the stone does not prevent the quarries being rated. Many persons pay rates on property from which they receive no profit. I know of no rating case bearing on the point raised.

JOHN T. EAYRS, Fellow.

I do not know of any legal decision bearing on the point raised. The separate rating of each hereditament is no doubt the correct way to deal with the case. The quarries would then be rateable according to their output and value to a hypothetical occupier, not necessarily on the present terms.

Assuming that the stone had to be obtained elsewhere, it may be argued that the owner would have to make some reduction in rent to his tenants to compensate them for extra outlay, and in that way he makes a profit on the quarrying of the stone.

W. FIDDIAN, Fellow.

Replies to Query 781 (Vol. XI., p. 348).

OUTGOING TENANT-POWER OF LANDLORD TO CLAIM BEFORE RECEIVING TENANT'S CLAIM.

Unless the tenant first makes his claim the landlord cannot make a counterclaim under the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1883-1900.

The proceedings must be initiated by the tenant; this being so, the landlord is without remedy for any wrong done by the tenant within the scope and schedules of those Acts.

But I presume there is a farm agreement, and that a valuation was made when the tenant entered upon the farm, and probably these documents may incidentally throw light upon its condition upon his entry : and also there may be well-defined customs of the country which the tenant may have broken, and under which, so far as they are outside the Acts, the landlord has his remedy. The two last items of £50 each are outside of the Acts.

The landlord should consult his solicitor and a first-class agricultural tenant-right valuer.

W. ARNOLD, Fellow.

If the tenant holds under a written agreement, the landlord can proceed under the covenants of that agreement for any damage he may sustain, by an action at law, or by arbitration if there is an arbitration clause in the agreement. If there is no written agreement he can claim by the custom of the country for waste, i.e. the impoverished condition of the land, and for repairs.

There is apparently an agreement, as a breach of covenant to repair is referred to.

I do not understand the third item. If the farm is to be given up at Michaelmas, how does the item for not giving the farm up peacefully now arise?

This claim can also be raised by an action at law.

It is true that one cannot claim under the Agricultural Holdings Act for any of the above unless the tenant first gives notice, but the Act does not take away the right to claim under an agreement or by custom. The 2nd Section, Sub-section 3, of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900, is permissive; it says the party claiming “may, if he think fit," but surely the landlord can raise his claim when the tenant claims for his tenant right valuation, as no doubt the landlord has covenanted under the agreement to pay that to his tenant on quitting.

O. N. WYATT, Fellow.

The remedy is an action at law. As soon as the tenant quits, or whether he quits or not, a valuation of all damages should be made by a practical valuer immediately on the determination of the tenancy, and proceedings should at once be taken for the recovery of the amount.

If the tenant should make a claim under the Agricultural Holdings Act (which in the present circumstances does not appear probable), the procedure would then be by counterclaim in the usual way.

E. H. MORRIS, Fellow.

This appears to depend upon the terms of tenancy. If there is any written agreement, the landlord's position should be defined therein, and he should consult a competent valuer as to the question involved.

No one can advise satisfactorily without knowing the whole of the circumstances; these may suggest a course of procedure outside the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act.

MARK JEANS, Fellow.

Replies to Query 782 (Vol. XI., p. 348).

URBAN AUTHORITY-REBUILDING-REFUSAL TO PASS PLANS.

It is quite correct that, provided the caretaker does not sleep on the premises, then such premises do not come under the definition of a 66 dwelling house," but under the warehouse class, which also includes shops, offices, workrooms, &c., in which cases the air space may be limited according to circumstances.

The retention of the two head walls would not be sufficient to make the work an alteration and addition to existing premises within the meaning of the Act.

If the roof were kept on, one could alter the level of the floors and rebuild the front or back elevation, and it would only be an alteration.

The approval of the plans by the Local Government Board would not override the objection of the urban authority as to any breach of by-laws. Within the last few weeks, in a case where an urban council for whom I act propose to erect buildings for their own requirements, the Local Government Board have asked me to give a certificate that the said plans complied with the council's by-laws previous to giving their sanction to the scheme.

As to corner plots in towns, a number of corporations now give exemption as to air space on sites within a given distance from the centre of the town.

R. EDGAR HORSFALL, Fellow.

It appears that the whole of the existing building has been removed, except the party (or external) walls next the adjoining owner's: therefore this must be considered a new building.

Taking into consideration that the new building will be a public building, the members of the local authority would not be likely to gain their point before a magistrate, especially as the structure not being in any sense a domestic building there is no obligation to provide the open area in the rear.

It is difficult to see any reason for sensible members of the local authority objecting to the plans. I should start and defend a summons. HENRY LOVEGROVE, Fellow.

Under the by-laws of the city of Leeds no objection is made to a caretaker residing on a block of office or manufacturing buildings, providing

that there shall be, at some part of the rear or side thereof, an open space of 150 feet superficial. This means that the caretaker's rooms cannot be placed in the interior of the building.

We have just had plans approved by the Leeds Corporation for a twostorey block of offices in Basinghall Street, and the plans provide for the caretaker a kitchen, two bedrooms, and bathroom at one corner of the upper rooms of the premises. We had also similar rooms allowed in Brown's old bank premises in Commercial Street.

On the question of leaving standing the head walls of two houses, I do not think this is sufficient. The general law is that if a building is to be pulled down, say, to about the first storey, it constitutes a new building.

I have had the erection of public buildings at the Leeds Workhouse, Adel Reformatory, and other places, and in every case was obliged to have the approval of the Local Government Board; and I some time ago objected to depositing the plans afterwards with the Leeds Corporation, arguing that, having the approval of the higher authority, it would be unnecessary to deposit the plans with the local authority; but I have had to submit and deposit them, and the works have been under the inspection of the corporation building authority.

I am quite of opinion that if even only for a caretaker, there must be the ordinary air space provided for dwellings. If the caretaker does not sleep on the premises I do not think that the premises would come under the definition of a dwelling, and therefore would not require the air space mentioned.

THOMAS WINN, Fellow.

Replies to Query 783 (Vol. XI., p. 349).

LANDLORD AND TENANT-DILAPIDATIONS-POINTING WALL.

I am not aware of such a decision, nor can I find, in "Redman," or "Fox," or "Woodfall," this precise case.

I assume the wall is the wall of the house in question, not a garden wall or anything of that kind. Probably the case (if ever argued) was dealt with as one of fact rather than law, and hence it might not be reported in the regular law reports.

T. W. WHEELER, K.C., Associate.

I never heard of such a case, and should not think such a decision possible.

Pointing would have to be done where necessary, to comply with the usual maintenance clause. If the wall is in danger of falling it would probably be necessary to rebuild it to comply with the usual covenants.

C. JOHN MANN, Fellow.

« 이전 계속 »

도서

Professional Notes, 11권