Abbott C. J. In no case has a person a right to the possession of a pew analogous to the right which he has to his house or land; for trespass would lie for an injury to the latter, but for an intrusion into the former, the remedy undoubtedly is by an action on the case. That furnishes strong reason for thinking that the action is maintainable only on the ground of the pew being annexed to the house as an easement, because an action on the case is the proper form of remedy for the disturbance of the enjoyment of any easement annexed to land, as in the case of a right of way or a stream of water.] The reason why trespass does not lie against a wrong doer for an injury done to the pew of another is, that the freehold is in the parson. A faculty for a pew can only be to the grantee, and the pew cannot be enjoyed in respect of a particular messuage. The ordinary has the disposal of the seats of the church, and he may from time to time apportion them according to the circumstances of the parish. In Brownlow and Goldesbrough's Reports, 45, it is laid down by Lord Coke, that a pew cannot belong to a house. D. F. Jones, contrá, was stopped by the Court. ABBOTT C. J. Without giving any opinion whether the instrument given in evidence be a valid instrument or not, I am of opinion, that this being a pew in the body of the church, and not in a chancel, which might be the freehold of an individual, no action at common law can be maintained for a disturbance, because the pew is not annexed to any house. The disturbance is matter for ecclesiastical censure only. The rule for a new trial must therefore be made absolute. BAYLEY J. 1822. MAINWARING against GILES. 1822. MAINWARING against GILES. BAYLEY J. I am of the same opinion. We leave the question untouched as to any right which the party may have in the ecclesiastical court. We only decide, that we cannot, in a court of common law, interfere in such a case as this, unless by the faculty the pew be annexed to a house in the parish. HOLROYD J. Where a right is annexed to a house in the parish, an obstruction to that right is a detriment to the occupation of the house, and I apprehend, that it is only on account of the pew being annexed to a house, that the temporal courts can take cognizance of any intrusion into it. Inasmuch, therefore, as the pew is not in this case annexed to a house, this is as much a matter of ecclesiastical cognizance alone, as the question which was discussed in this court as to the right of burying the dead in iron coffins. I am of opinion, that the mere right to sit in a particular pew is not such a temporal right as that, in respect of it, an action at common law is maintainable. BEST J. concurred. Rule absolute. 1822. JOHN DOE on the Demise of CHARLES Earl of EJECTMENT to recover lands in the county of Stafford. The cause was tried at the Summer Assizes, 1820, for the county of Stafford, before Best, J., when By a private the year 1720, certain estates act, passed in were settled in strict settle tlement, and a power was reserved to the respective tenants in tail, by deed, to lease any part of the lands thereby settled, " for the term of three lives or twenty-one years, or for any term or number of years determinable upon the death or determination of three lives, so as upon every such lease there be reserved, and made payable yearly, during the continuance thereof, the usual and accustomed yearly rents, boons, and services for the same; and so as there be contained therein a condition of re-entry for non payment of the said rent, and rents thereby to be reserved. By lease, dated the 6th January, 1785, a tenant in tail of the said estates demised a part of the premises thereby, settled to hold from the date of the lease for ninety-nine years, if three persons therein named should so long live, yielding and paying yearly and every year during the said term, unto the lessor, the yearly rent of 50%. upon the 25th March and 29th September, by even and equal portions, the first payment to be made on the 25th March ensuing the date of the lease. There was a proviso that, if the rent should not be paid on those days, or if certain amerciaments and fines therein mentioned, after reasonable demand, should not be paid, it should be lawful for the lessor, his heirs, and assigns, to re-enter and distrain, and the distress to take away, detain, and keep, until the rent be satisfied; and there was the following proviso for reentry: "that in case the said yearly rent should be unpaid for the space of twenty eight days after it became due, being lawfully demanded, it should be lawful for the lessor, his heirs, and assigns, to re-enter." Previous to the time of passing the act, the premises demised by this lease had been demised jointly with other premises by the settlor's ancestor, by a lease bearing date 2d February, 1708, "for ninety-nine years, determinable upon three lives, at a yearly rent of 821. payable on the same days as those mentioned in the lease of the 6th January, 1785, and the first payment to commence on the 25th March ensuing the date of the lease." It contained also a similar power for the lessor to distrain, and a power of re-entry, upon the rent being behind for twenty-eight days, upon its being lawfully demanded, and not paid, and no sufficient distress being found upon the premises. It did not appear whether any other lease was granted between that period and the year 1756. At that time another lease of the premises, demised by the lease of the 6th January, 1785, was granted at a rent of 321. payable at the same period as in the other leases, containing the same powers of distress and re-entry for non-payment of rent as those in the lease of the 6th January, 1785: Held, first, that it was not a valid objection to the lease of the 6th January, 1785, that the rent was made payable on the 25th March and the 29th September, (although the term commenced on the 6th January, and therefore there was a forehand rent, which might prejudice the remainder-man) inasmuch as the rent was made payable on the same days by the former lease, and, therefore, this was the usual and accustomed rent: Held, secondly, for the same reason, that it was no objection to the lease that the rent was made payable by half-yearly payments, although the power required it to be payable yearly; the word yearly meaning a payment of rent in the year : Held, thirdly, that it was no objection to the lease that by the terms of it the landlord could distrain only after a reasonable demand, and that he was bound to detain the distress until the distress be satisfied; for this being a clause introduced for his benefit, he was not thereby abridged of any right of distress which he had by common law, or of sale, under the statute 4 & 5 W, & M.; the 1822. Dos dem. Earl of SHREWSBURY against WILSON. Held, fourth ly, that it was no objection to the jury found a verdict for the lessor of the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court on the following case: 'In the year A.D. 1720, a private act of parliament passed for annexing the Duke of Shrewsbury's estate to the earldom of Shrewsbury, and confirming Gilbert Earl of Shrewsbury's settlement. By this act certain lands and hereditaments, of which the premises mentioned in the ed the right of declaration were parcel, were settled to the use of George Talbot, brother of Gilbert then Earl of Shrewsbury, for this lease that the clause of re-entry reserv entry to the landlord upon the rent being twenty-eight days in arrear, for this was a reasonable condition of re conformable to life, remainder to trustees to preserve, &c. And after the decease of the said George Talbot, to the use of trustees for the term of 200 years, to secure the jointure entry, and was of Mary Fitzwilliam his wife, and after the determination of the said term, to the use of the first and other sons of the said George Talbot, on the body of the said Mary Fitzwilliam to be begotten, in tail male successively, with remainders over, and with an ultimate remainder to the use of all persons being issue male of the body of John first Earl of Shrewsbury, to whom the title, honour, and dignity deprived of the of Earl of Shrewsbury should, by virtue of the letters patent of the creation of the said earldom descend, in tail male, the old lease. was not thereby benefit of the 4 G. 2. c. 28. and consequently was entitled by that statute to enter without making any demand: Held, also, that part of premises formerly demised, jointly with others, at one entire rent, might be let to attend and wait upon the said earldom, and to be annexed to and descend with the same. The act contained a restriction from alienation, except on certain conditions therein specified, and the following power of leasing; that it shall and may be lawful to and for the successive tenants in tail, and every other person and persons to whom the said manors, lands, &c. are limited under the terms by this act of parliament successively, by any deed or of this power, at a rent bearing deeds, writing or writings by them respectively to be the same pro portion to the old rent that the premises demised by the lease bore to the whole premises formerly demised. signed in the presence of two or more credible wit- the 1822. Dox dem. Earl of SHREWSBURY against WILSON |