440 EATING FOR PROPERTY-TAX. 



made (E(hnfl)ids v. EashcootJ). Aud semhlo per Martin B., Watson B., 

 and Channell B., that the hmdloi'd was asseBsa])le to income-tax in re- 

 spect of the 2s. payable for each thousand over a niilhon bricks made 

 on the demised premises in the com-se of a year under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 

 35, s, 1, and that the dednction was properly made under Schedule A, 

 No. 8 {ib.). And^;^;- Channell B. : " The case of Daniel v. Grace is an 

 autliority that the right of distress attaches in respect of the reserva- 

 tion of 2s. per thousand on- the briclis made over a milhon" {ih.). 

 His lordship thus explained the distinction between the schedules : 

 *' No doubt Schedule A imposes the tax in respect of the property in 

 land ; Schedule B in respect of its occuiMtion ; Schedule C in respect 

 of profits derived from land; but Schedule D is more general in its 

 terms, and of wider effect than any of the preceding, and was, in my 

 opinion, intended to impose the tax in respect of every sort of property, 

 occupation, or profit, in or from land not embraced by any of the other 

 schedules" {ih.). 



Tlw pom' rate is entirely cJuirged vpon the occnpier, and is a personal 

 charge in respect of the land. The property tax is assessed on the occupier, 

 and he has a right to deduct it from his next payment of rent, and if 

 he does not do so, he cannot recover it back from his landlord, either as 

 money paid, or money had and received to his use {Cumming v, Bed- 

 lorough). And per Alderson B. : " Money had and received could not 

 lie, because it is not shown that the rent was overpaid at all. It 

 either is a volmitary payment, or it is no payment at all " (^&). And 

 pier MauJe J. : " Without unduly straining the words of the act, the 

 deduction may be claimed out of the next payment, though made under 

 legal process " {Franldin v. Carter). And semlle per Lord Tenterden 

 C. J. : " If a tencmtpays taxes ivhich he alleges ought to have heen paid 

 l)]l his landlord, and afterwards pays rent for two years subsequently 

 without making any deduction, he cannot recover the amount in an 

 action against the landlord " {Saunderson v. Hanson). And semile 

 that a broker, who, when receiving rent under a distress, deducts a 

 sum purporting to be for land-tax, is not to be considered as allotv- 

 ing the land-tax, so as to affect the landlord's right, but as merely 

 from not knowing how to act, consenting to receive the money with- 

 out the sum deducted {ih.). The landlords are compelled by the 

 statutes 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35, ss. 103-105 to allow the deduction under a 

 penalty. 



Denhg v. Moore decided that an occupier of lands having, during a 

 course of twelve years, paid to the collector of taxes the landlord' s prcrperty- 

 iax, and the fill rent as it hecame due to the landlord, could not recover 

 hack from the latter any part of iite prroperty-tax so paid, as muneg had 



