Land tax - redemption of, how proved.

(r) Fort v. Clark, (1826) 1 Russ. 601.

(s)Doe v. Varies, (1847) 10 Q. B. 314; 16 L. J. Q. B. 218.

(t) Shrewsbury Peerage case, (1858) 7 H. L. C. 1.

(u) Cowell v. Chambers, (1856) 21 Beav. 619; Moulton v. Edmonds, (1859) 1 D. F. & J. 246; 29 L. J. Ch. 181; see also Merttens v. Hill, 1901, 1 Ch. 842, 852; 70 L. J. Ch. 489.

(x) See as to sales for redemption of the tax, Sicks v. Morant, (1831) 5 Bl. N. S. 643; S. C, 2 Dow, &. C. 414; Lawrie v. Z., (1814) 2 Dow, 556. As to the right of a remainderman to pay off the representatives of a tenant for life who redeemed the land tax out of his own money, see Cousins v. Harris, (1848) 12 Q. B. 726; 17 L. J. Q. B. 273. As to merger of redeemed land tax, see Blundell v. Stanley, (1849) 3 De G. & S. 433; 18 L. J. Ch. 300; Bulkeley v. Hope, (1855) 1 K. & J. 482; 24 L. J. Ch. 356; Neame v. Moorsom, (1867) 3 Eq. 91; 36 X. J. Ch. 274; when redeemed by ecclesiastical incumbent, Kilderbee v. Ambrose, (1854) 10 Ex. 454; 24 L. J. Ex. 49. Under the Land Tax Redemption (No. 2) Act, 1853, s. 2, merger took place in every case of redemption under a contract entered into after the 20th Aug. 1853; but as regards contracts entered into after the 29th July, 1866, this section was repealed by the Taxes Act, 1856, s. 3. A subsequent inclosure of waste lands of a manor will not revive the land tax, if it has been previously redeemed; Hodgson v. Pearson, (1875) 31 L. T. 679. In contracts for the redemption of land tax, the word "lands" includes (prima facie) everything down to the centre of the earth; Newton, Chambers & Co., Ltd. v. Hall, 1907, 2 K. B. 446.

(y) See Board of Agriculture Act, 1889, and Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1919.

(z) See Finance Act, 1896, ss. 32 - 33; Finance Act, 1921, s. 64.

(a) Buchanan v. Poppleton, (1868) 4 C. B. N. S. at p. 40; 27 L. J. C. P. 210.

Tithe, or a tithe rent-charge (e) (which is an interest capable of subsisting as a legal interest under the L. P. Act, 19125, s. 1 ,(2)), is also a burden the existence of which is presumed in the absence of agreement. The Commissioners acting under the Tithe Act, 1836, and subsequent Acts (f) had power between tithe owner and land owner (g), but not as between rival claimants of tithe (h), to decide all questions as to the existence of any modus, or composition real or prescriptive, or customary payment, or any claim of exemption from or non-liability to payment of tithes (i); and their decision, unless reversed on an appeal, was binding and conclusive (k). From the Tithe Act, 1836, were excepted tithes of fish and fishing, and mineral tithes (l)r payments instead of tithes in the City of London, and permanent rent-charges payable in any city or town by custom or any local Act of Parliament (m).

Tithes.

Commutation of, under late Acts.

Decision of Board conclusive if no appeal.

(b) Cooch v. Walden, (1877) 46 L. J. Ch. 639.

(c) Cox v. Rabbits, (1878) 3 A. C. 473; 47 L. J. Q. B. 385; St. Thomas's Hospital (Govrs. of) v. Hudgell, 1901, 1 K. B. 364; 70 L. J. K. B. 115.

(d) Central London R. v. City of London Tax Commrs., 1911, 1 Ch. 467; 1911, 2 Ch. 467.

(e) See Tithe Act, 1836, which abolished tithe in specie, and substituted a sum in the nature of a rent-charge, varying with the price of corn. See ss. 12, 67.

(f) An award purporting to be sealed with the seal of the Commissioners (Tithe Act, 1836, s. 2), or after the passing of the Board of Agriculture Act, 1889 (see s. 7), a certificate of the Board (now Ministry) of Agriculture, is made evidence.

(g) See Walker v. Bentley, (1852) 9 Ha. 629, 635.

(h) R. v. Tithe Commrs., (1850) 15 Q. B. 620; 19 L. J. Q. B. 177.

(i) Tithe Act, 1836, 6. 45; see Wetherell v. Weighill, (1838) 3 Y. & C. 243; and see Tithe Act, 1842, s. 10; R. v. Tithe Commrs., (1849) 14 Q. B. 459; (1852) 18 Q. B. 156; Shepherd v. Lord Londonderry, (1852) 18 Q. B. 145; 21 L. J. Q. B. 204.

(k) S. 46.

23(2)

Payments in lieu of tithes.

Under s. 58 of the Tithe Act, 1836, the commutation rent-charge might be specially apportioned, so as to throw the amount attributable to the tithes of an entire estate upon some particular portion of it in exoneration of the residue; or the apportionment might be made at the rate of so much per acre for the whole estate, thus obviating the necessity of constant reapportionment of the tithes in the event of subdivision of the property. Where an apportionment is desired on the subdivision of an estate, application must be made for a reapportionment under the provisions of s. 72 of the Tithe Act, 1836, or subsequent Acts (n). The sum payable under the Act in lieu of tithes, as not a charge on the inheritance such as to entitle the owner of the rent-charge to sell the land out of which it issues for satisfaction of arrears (o). When there has been an apportionment, the contract or conditions should state either the fact or the amount actually payable. The imposition of an extraordinary charge in certain districts on lands cultivated as hop grounds or orchards or market gardens, has, under the provisions of the Extraordinary Tithe Acts, 1886 to 1897. ceased to exist, and in lieu thereof a rent-charge of four per cent, on the capital value was substituted. This rent-charge is subject to the same rules as to apportionment as the ordinary tithe rent-charge.

As to liability under special apportionments.

As to extraordinary charges on hop grounds, orchards and gardens.

(l) As to what minerals are titheable, see Cruise, tit. 22, s. 47.

(m) S. 90. As to tithes in City of London, see Payne v. Esdaile, (1888) 13 A. C. 613; 58 L. J. Ch. 299.

(n) See Tithe Act, 1842, s. 14; Tithe Act, 1846, ss. 13, 15; Tithe Act, 1847, s. 3, and ©specially Tithe Act, 1860, ss. 10 et seq.

(o) Bailey v. Badham, (1885) 30 Ch. D. 84; 54 L. J. Ch. 1067. Cf. Re Salter and Awdry's Lease, 1921, 2 Ch. 141. In general, all tithe rent-charges are now recoverable only through the County Court, under the provisions of s. 2 of the Tithe Act, 1891; see also s. 8 as to remission of the rent-charge in certain cases. The vendor is not liable to apportion tithe rent-charge; Re Ebsworth and Tidy, (1889) 42 Ch. D. 23; 58 L. J. Ch. 665.