Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1


comr'oit, he is not only not bound, but he ought not, to transmit it to his suecossor."
The principle thus stated is directly opposite to that whicli, as we have above observed,
regulates civil cases, namely, that the occupier must keep in repair whatever may have
been erected during liis occupation. The judgment just cited continue^ in these words :
It" the successor may recover damages from the executor after such things have been re-
moved by the testator, there can be no doubt he in his turn must maintain it ; and if lie
maintain it he must also restore, and even rebuild when decayed ; so that the benefice
migiit become permanently saddled with a useless burden."
he duty to remove such
erections does not, however, appear quite to have been thrown upon the estate of tiie
: the same judgment says, "the case now supposed is that of an erection, which, if
the deceased had left out of repair, liis successor could not have maintained any action for
dilajjidations, which he himself therefore woidd not be bound to keep in repiiir, which im-
poses no burden on him, and which he may remove; for it would he unreasonable to hold
that he might not remove, however useless or uiisuitable to tlie livsnnc, or even incon-
venient to the occupation of the parsonage or glebe, that which for one of these reasons lie
was not bound to keep in repair." Finally we would quote from tiie same judgment
"with regard to an ecclesiastical benefice, the ciiaracter and object of the building to
which the chattel is attached, and the manner in which it has been so attached, seem of
very great consequence in determining whether there was any intention to separate it per-
manently and irrevocably from the personal estate." In tiiis case the jilaintiH's
were held justiHed in removing the framework and sashes, valued at SOOZ., of two hot
houses, and might apparently have removed also the brickwork, repairing any waste or
damage to tlie freehold. With respect to that damage we have already
referred to this
The real difference between civil and ecclesiastical dilapidations may be thus stated ;

One man takes certain premises, engaging to pay a rent in order to derive advantages out
of them, but having no interest in the Ireeiiold. The other m:in receives a salary to do
certain services, the wse of the house being a portion of tiiat s;ilary. In the latter case, if
for a man's own private convenience he lays out a large sum on tiie freehold, that expendi-
ture will seriously affect his successor, if he have to be burdened with large and expensive
erections or decorations suitable perhaps for one of an aristocratic family, hut quite foreign
to the habits of a future rector of the village coming in as an ordinary occupant.
Sucfi are the general principles of the law of dilapidations; ttiese, in their application,
generally impose upon the out-going occupant or his representatives the payment of a sum for
which special provision is rarely made during the occupancy : the misery thus entailed is
sometimes evaded in civil cases by the lessee, who parts witii the remainder of a lease to
any one who will give something for it; or who (if the lessor be not carelul) assigns it to
a man of straw.
Interest, or the value of the use of money, is usually expressed per cent., or after
the rate per hundred on the principal lent. Thus, if we put out 500 pounds sterling at
per cent., it signifies that for every hundred pounds the lender is to receive five jiounds
per annum during the continuance of the lo.in. The solution of this (luestion, wliich is
one merely of simple interest, is so obvious, that it is unnecessary further to detain the
reader upon it ; and we therefore pass on to coinj)ound interest, or interest upon interest,
which arises from the principal and interest taken together, as it becomes due at the end
of each stated time of payment.
In the resolution of this question, we are to consider that 100/. at the end of
a year
becomes 103/. Let a = principal. Its amount at the end of the year is lound by sayings
if 100 gives 105, what will a give? and we answer
which may be also expressed
a, or a +
X a.
Thus, by adding its twentieth part to the original principal, we have the principal
at the end of the first year
adding to this last its twentieth, we know the amount of tiie
given principal in two years, and so on. Hence the annual increases to the principal may
be easily computtd. Suppose, for instance, the principal of 1000/. Expressing the \alues
ill decimal fractions, it will be worth