1812. The KING against point. And if this were not the true construction, this inconvenience would follow, that however young the children might be coming with their father into the parish with a certificate naming them, if the father gained a new LEEK WOOT- Settlement there, he would be settled in one parish, and the children in another. The Inhabitants of TON. Saturday, June 13th. The taking of a tenement which, by having been cropped by the landlord with clover and grass seeds, when let to the tenant, was worth 10%. a-year, but without that circumstance would have been of much less annual value, will confer a settlement. Order of Sessions quashed. The KING against The Inhabitants of PURLEY. RICHARD EMMONS, Ann his wife, and his six children, were removed by the order of two justices from the liberty of Woodley and Sandford to the parish of Purley, both in the county of Berks; and the sessions on appeal confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case. The pauper, Richard Emmons, having been legally settled in Purley from Michaelmas 1808 to Michaelmas 1809, occupied a cottage and garden in the liberty of Woodley and Sandford, in the parish of Sonning, in the county of Berks, as tenant from year to year; and which cottage and garden was of the annual value of 41. He also held a piece of land in the parish of Tilehurst in the same county, for one year from Michaelmas 1808 until Michaelmas 1809, at the rent of 6. 10s. for that year. It had been cropped by the landlord with clover and grass seeds previously to letting thereof to the pauper, and in consequence of its being so cropped it was worth 61. 10s. for that year; but had it not been so cropped by the landlord, it would have been worth only 21. 5s. per year. The pauper, during the whole of the said year from Michaelmas 1808 to Michaelmas 1809, resided on his said cottage and garden in the liberty of Woodley and Sandford. W. E. W. E. Taunton endeavoured to support the order of sessions, on the ground that the land which the pauper held in Tilehurst was only of the accidental value of so much as, with the rest, amounted to 107. a-year, during the period that he had it; that is, made so much by the labour and property of another bestowed on it; whereas in order to confer a settlement, the taking should be of a tenement which is communibus annis of that value. That in fact the pauper did no more than purchase of the landlord the value of the crop. Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. He occupied a tenement which, during that year, was in fact of the value of 107. : how it became of that value is immaterial: it might have happened that the crop was worth more in that year. Per Curiam, Both Orders quashed. Abbott and Burnal were to have opposed the orders. 1812. The KING against The Inhabitants of PURLEY. The KING against The Inhabitants of HOLM TW TWO justices by their order removed Jane Anderson, single woman, and her child Mary Anderson, aged five years, from Holm East Waver Quarter, in the parish of Holm Cultram, to the parish of Aicton, both in Cumberland. The sessions, on appeal, quashed the order as to the mother, but confirmed it as to the child, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following case. A Saturday, June 13th. father having tenement for purchased a less than 30, devised it in trust to be let to farm during his daughter's life, and to pay her the rents after deducting the expenses. Held that by 40 days residence thereon by permission of the trustee, after the father's death, she gained a settlement. Jane 1812. The KING against The Inhabitants of HOLM EAST Jane Anderson, who was previously settled in Aicton, resided with her father Daniel Anderson, who was also settled in the same parish, upon an estate in the removant township, which he had purchased for less than 307., and continued to reside with him till his death. The father died leaving a will, by which he devised this estate, consisting of a cottage and land, under the annual value of 101., to a trustee, in trust, after his death, to let the same to farm during the natural life of his daughter, Jane Anderson, the pauper, and to pay her the rents thereof (after deducting the expenses) during her life; and after her death, in trust to and for the use of his right heirs. The pauper Jane Anderson continued to reside upon the premises for more than 40 days after the death of her father in the removant township; the trustee never having interfered. The question was whether Jane Anderson had such an estate in the premises, as to gain a settlement by her residence thereon for more than 40 days after her father's death. P. Courtenay argued for the settlement in Holm East Waver Quarter, that it was not necessary to have the legal title in an estate to gain a settlement in the parish, but an equitable title was sufficient; and cited Rex v. Offchurch (a). The Court said that the same point had been ruled in a later case. Fell, contrà, said that, without meaning to disturb The King v. Offchurch, or Rex v. Coldashton (b), or Rex v. Horsley (c), the cases were not to be understood as going further than this, that when a party has an exclu (u) 3 Term Rep. 114. (b) Burr, S. C. 460. (e) 8 East, 405. 1812. The KING against The Inhabitants of sive right to enforce the conveyance to him of the legal title, such a right coupled with the occupation of the property is sufficient to confer a settlement; upon the same principle that a settlement may be gained by a sole executor (a) before probate, or by a sole next of kin (b) HOLM EAST before administration granted. Here the pauper only occupied as tenant to the trustee of a tenement under the annual value of 107. Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. This species of settlement does not depend upon any term in a statute, but is an excepted case in the law, standing upon the rule, that a man shall not be removed from his own, while his trustee permits him to occupy it, and from which nobody else has a right to remove him. Here the pauper did not reside in the character of a tenant. (Fell having observed that she was only entitled to receive the surplus rents after deducting the repairs ;) his lordship, after alluding to the different opinions held in Shapland v. Smith, observed that whether the estate here were legal or equitable, it was still the pauper's own, and she could not be removed from it by an order of justices. Orders confirmed. (a) Rex v. Stone, 6 Term Rep. 295. (b) Rex v. Owresbury, last term. WAVER Quarter. HUBBARD against BIGGS. HOLROYD moved for the Master to review his debtor Monday, June 15th. Where a noli prosequi is entered on any of the counts in a declaration, there is no rule for allowing suffi- costs on such cient counts. 1812. HUBBARD against BIGGS. cient to levy the whole debt, but that he only levied a less sum than the debt, and returned that he had levied the smaller sum, which he had paid to the plaintiff, and nulla bona ultra. There was a second count to the same effect, with some variations. And a third count upon the stat. 5 Eliz. for extortion in taking of the plaintiff more than he ought to have done for levying the sum which he had returned as levied. At the trial the plaintiff had agreed to take a verdict for the deficiency of the levy upon the first count, and entered a noli prosequi on the other counts; and thereupon the Master had only allowed the costs of the first count; but not of the others : and The Court approved of the taxation, and denied the motion (a). (a) See Tidd's Pract. 2d edit. 887. Monday, June 15th. Third persons holding the acceptance of a known to be in FAIR and Another, Assignees of WILSON, a Bankrupt, against M'IVER and Another. HE plaintiffs declared in assumpsit as assignees of the bankrupt, upon a special agreement, and stated trader who was in the first count, that whereas on the 23d of November bad circumstances, agreed with the defendants, as a mode of covering the amount of the bill, that it should be indorsed to them, and that they should purchase goods of the trader, which were to be paid for by a bill at three months' date, or made equal to cash in three months, (before which time the trader's acceptance would be due,) but without communicating to the trader that they were the holders of his acceptance: held that the trader having become bankrupt, and his assignees having brought assumpsit to recover the value of the goods sold and delivered to the defendants, the latter could not set off the bankrupt's acceptance, which they did not hold in their own right, but in effect for such other persons, |