HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0284 and id is 1 raw text is: DOUGLAS V. EARL DYSART
service shall start and arrive, and a stipulation that it shall be proper for the purpose.
I cannot distinguish that in principle from the ordinary case of a railway company
providing warehouses for the stowage of goods entrusted to them. It is one of the
incidents to the due employment of the railway. I see nothing at all invalid in the
contract. As to the plea, another question arises, on which it is necessary to give an
opinion, viz. whether it is to be taken to allege that there is some fact not appearing
upon the record by reason of which the contract declared on is invalid, and whether
that constitutes a good plea on general demurrer; or whether we must not take the
plea as alleging that the contract as declared on is illegal. For the reasons stated
by my Brother Williams, I think we must take the plea as applying solely to that
which already appears upon the record. If it means anything else, as at present
advised, I should hold it to be a bad plea. It does not present matter to enable the
court to see whether or not there is such illegality as to afford an answer in point
of law to the declaration. It is [688] enough, however, to say that the plea is bad,
there being nothing to show that the contract declared on is invalid.
BYLES, J., concurred.
Judgment for the plaintiffs.
THE H-ON. MARY SIDNEY DOUGLAS, Appellant; THE RIGHT HON. LIONEL WILLIAm
JOHN, EARL OF DYSART, Respondent. June 20th, 1861.
[S. C. 6 L. T. 327.]
A custom that the lord of a manor, in assessing the fine upon admittance of one not
being a copyhold tenant on the court-rolls (except a customary heir claiming
admittance as such), is not restricted in amount to any number of years' value of
the tenement to which such admittance is made, is unreasonable and bad.
The following case was stated for the opinion of this court under the provisions
of the Copyhold Act, 1852, 15 & 16 Vict. c. 51, s. 8:-
The respondent is the lord of the manor of Petersham, in the county of Surrey.
The appellant is a copyhold tenant of the said manor.
In the course of proceedings taken under the said act for the enfranchisement
of certain copyhold tenements of the appellant, held by her within the said manor,
the following question arose, and was referred to Mr. Nathan Wetherell, the assistant-
commissioner, according to the provisions of the aforesaid section, viz. What are
the fines payable to the lord of the said manor on the admission to tenements held
by copy of court-roll of the said manor!.
The assistant-commissioner decided that the fines payable on admission to tene-
ments held of the manor of Petersham by copy of court-roll are as follows, that is
to say,-
1. That, on the admission of the customary heir of [689] any tenant'of the
manor, provided such heir claims admission as heir, but not otherwise, a fine is
payable to the lord not exceeding in amount two years' quit-rents payable to the
lord in respect of the tenement to which such admission is made:
2. That, on the admission of any person then being a copyhold tenant on the
rolls to any other tenement held of the manor, a fine is payable to the lord not
exceeding in amount two years' quit-rents payable to the lord in respect of the
tenement to which such admission is made:
3. And that, upon the admission of every other person not being a copyhold
tenant on the court-rolls (except such heir claiming admission as such as aforesaid),
a fine arbitrary is payable to the lord in respect of every tenement to which such
admission is made; and that, in assessing such fine, the lord is not restricted in
amount to any number of years' value of the tenement to which such admission
is made.
The appellant is dissatisfied with the decision of the assistant-commissioner on the
third point so decided by him. This decision is in accordance with and is grounded
upon the custom of the manor: but the appellant contends, that that custom, viz.
that the lord, in assessing the fine upon admission of every other person not being a
copyhold tenant on the court-rolls (except a customary heir claiming admission as
such), is riot restricted in amount to any number of years' value of the tenement
10 C. B. (N. 8.) 688.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0284&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)