642 
The Agricultural Holdings Act. 
grounds, which would hardly be interesting to readers of the 
Journal ; but that of Lord Justice Kay contains some weighty 
observations on the general scope of the Act of 1883, as well as the 
technical grounds applicable to the case immediately before the 
Court, and is therefore given, at some length. His Lordship 
5aid : — 
" The Agricultural Holdings Acts give to the tenant rights which 
" he did not possess before to claim compensation from his landlord 
■" for unexhausted improvements. Under the Act of 1875 it was pos- 
" sible for the landlord and the tenant to contract themselves out of 
" the Act. But the Act of 1883 went a step further and forbade that, 
*' and made the provisions of the Act binding on the landlord. It is 
"clear that in the present case the executors were bound to pay the 35/., 
" and they did pay it. Turning to section 29, I find that these 
^' executors, if they can be brought within the term landlord, are 
"entitled to obtain a charge upon the land for this '551. It was paid 
" by them for unexhausted improvements of which the land would 
get the benefit — that is, the land of the remainderman — and out of 
" which the estate of the tenant for life would get no benefit what- 
" ever. Can it have been intended that under this Act the landlord, 
*' if he is alive, can obtain a charge on the land, but if he has died, his 
" executors cannot obtain it 1 — -that they should pay out of his estate 
"for improvements upon the land of the remainderman, and yet get 
" no charge upon the land which has been improved 1 I said during 
" the argument that it would be monstrous if the Act allowed such 
" an injustice as that to take place, and I think that the language 
" which I used is not too strong to describe such a result. It is 
"incredible that the Legislature should have intended that the Act 
" should have that effect. But is that the necessary construction 1 
" Turning to the definition of the word landlord, I think that it 
" is probable that the executors do not come within it, and I do not 
" rely upon that. It is argued that in the Agricultural Holdings 
"Act, 1875, s. 4, 'landlord' is defined so as to include the executors, 
" and that that is not so in the present Act, whereas in the definition 
" of ' tenant ' the words including the executors are still retained. 
" That argument is worthy of attention, but there is another difier- 
"ence between these sections of the two Acts. ' [His Lordship read 
the clause in section 61 of the Act of 1883 which I have cited above, 
and the corresponding clause in the definition section of the 1875 
Act, and continued] : — " These clauses are like and yet very un- 
" like ; is not the i-eason for the alteration the fact that the exe- 
" cutors of a landlord have been omitted from the definition of ' land- 
" ' lord 1 ' so that although not within the definition, they may be 
" within the designation as long as proceedings under tliis Act are 
" going on. It seems to me that it was a mistake to say that a land- 
" lord should mean his executors, for the landlord's interest often 
" ceases entirely at his death, and such a definition might therefore 
" give rise to difficulties. But to say that the executors shall be in- 
" eluded in the designation of landlord until the conclusion of pro- 
ceedings under this Act makes the Act intelligible ; for the proceed- 
