LIABILITY OF OWNER OF LAND. 395 



and stat. 3 & 4 Will TV. c. 27 cannot be applied to the case of tithes, in 

 the same way as it has been held to operate as a parliamentary convey- 

 ance of land {Bunhury v. Fuller). 



A lequest of pnre personalty to a cJiarity, the object of which is the 

 purchase and restoration of the church of impropriate tithes, was held 

 by the Lords Justices, confirming the judgment of Sir J. Romilly M.R. 

 to be void under the Mortmain Act (stat. 9 Oeo. II. c. 3G), notwithstanding 

 stat. 6 & 7 Vid. c. 37, s. 25, and stat. 13 & 14 Vict. c. 94, s. 23 {Denton 

 V. Lord John Planners). 



The 6 & 7 Will. c. 71, creates no personal liability iqwn the oivner of 

 lands charged with the tithe-rent. In Griffeiihoofe v. Daiibuz the de- 

 claration alleged that the plaintiff was tenant of a farm to defendant for 

 a term of years, after the expiration of which there became due and 

 payable from defendant to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners money in 

 res|)ect of a tithe commutation rent, charged on the farm and the land, 

 which defendant, as owner of the farm, and entitled to the rents and 

 profits, was liable to have paid, and ought to have paid. Defendant 

 having neglected to pay it, the commissioners distrained for it a stack 

 of wheat of plaintiflF then lawfully on the farm and land, and afterwards 

 sold it, and defendant, though requested had not indemnified plaintifp. 

 The defendant pleaded that he was not liable to pay, nor ought to have 

 paid, and it was held by the Court of Queen's Bench that the issue 

 ought to be found for him, as stat. 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 71, s. 67, provides 

 that nothing in the statute contained shall be taken to render any 

 person whatsoever personally liable to the payment of any such rent- 

 charge ; the land only is liable. The commutation rent-charge, as thus 

 settled, is simply a payment issuing out of the land, and by sec. 80 may 

 be deducted from the rent. The plaintiff had covenanted to pay such 

 rent-charge, and here endeavoured to charge the defendant with it on 

 the ground of personal liability, which is not created by the act. This 

 judgment was affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber, where Taylor v. 

 Zamira was cited for the defendant as an authority that the defendant 

 was bound to indemnify him. 



The intention of tJie TitJie Commutation Acts is, that the lands on which 

 the cqij^ortiomnent of the tithe in each jKirish is cast, and these lands only, 

 shall be liable in respect of the tithe payable for any lands in the 

 parish ; and that lands on which no apportionment is cast, shall not be 

 liable to tithe ; and lands which on the agreement and apportionment 

 under the Tithe Commutation Acts (confirmed by the Tithe Commis- 

 sioners) are treated as ft-ee from tithe, cannot be afterwards made 

 subject to it {Walker \. Be nf ley). A lessee of tithes is liable on his 

 covenant to pay rent, notwithstanding the tithes have been commuted 



