444 SEIZUEE OF HEPvIOTS. 



the liands of a single owner pays bnt one hcriot, but pays several if 

 divided umoug several owners, shall again pay but one heriot if it again 

 becomes united in the person of a single owner. 



It was held, in Ahington v. Lipscomb, that trover did not lis, ivhere the 

 landlord had marked and demanded seven heriots instead of five. In 

 March, 1838, the defendant's father died, seised of certain customary 

 freeholds, on which heriots were payable to the plaintiff as lord of the 

 manor of Penshurst Halemote, on the death of the tenant. The custo- 

 mary heriot was the best living beast or a stated money payment. 

 The tenements were seven ; they had originally been only five, but 

 two had been divided, and the several parts had passed into different 

 hands, and the whole had become re-united in the possession of the 

 defendant's father. Seven heriots were accordingly claimed, one for 

 each tenement by the bailiff of the manor ; but it was admitted in the 

 argument that according to the rule in Garlands. Jehjll only five were 

 due. The bailiff' claimed to mark seven beasts, a day or two after the 

 death of the defendant's father, and with the consent of the defendant 

 marked fotir horses in the field, one in the stables, and t-<vo cows in the 

 yard. This was in March ; and when he went to claim them in De- 

 cember, the defendant said he should refer it to his attorney and not 

 deliver them up. It was urged for the defendant that the refusal did 

 not under the circumstances show a conversion ; and there was no 

 refusal of five, but only a refusal of seven, and that in fact the only con- 

 version was a refusal to give up the seven unlawfully claimed. The 

 defence in point of fact was an assignment made by the father shortly 

 before his death, which the ])laintiff contended was void by stat. 13 

 Eli^. c. 5, s. 2. The jury found that there had been such an assign- 

 ment with a view to evade payment of the heriot, and returned a verdict 

 of £105 for the plaintiff, leave being given to move to reduce the 

 damages if the plaintiff was entitled to recover, but not for so many as 

 seven heriots, or to enter a nonsuit if the Court should be of opinion 

 that the above statute did not apply, or that the evidence did not show 

 a conversion. The Court held that that there was no conversion, and 

 a rule for entering a nonsuit was made absolute, on the grounds put by 

 Lord Denman C. J., that " the demand had reference to a seizure actually 

 made of seven beasts, when the plaintiff had only a right to seize five. 

 Supposing it then to be clear that the demand and refusal amounted 

 to a conversion of five, still it is left uncertain which five he lawfully 

 seized. If he is entitled to the best beast as an heriot, he must form a 

 judgment and exercise an option as to which is best. This is clear 

 from Woodland v. Mantel!, Fcter v. Ktioll, and Odiham v. Smith." And 

 see Fri^e v. Woodhouse, 



