is by the quantity of goods or tonnage they will contain after leaving proper gangways, and not overloading the floors. In corn warehouses, however, the grain being distributed over the surface of the floor, the squares of floor are taken to come at the contents. Goods warehoused are paid for to the warehouseman usually at a weekly or monthly rent; and it is commonly considered that the profit he should make ought to be one half of the rent he pays to the landlord, so that in fact two-thirds of the actual rent realised goes to the proprietor, and the other third to the warehouseman or lessee. Tables of the weight and space occupied by different goods are given in the GLOSSARY ADDENDUM.

We have noticed at the commencement of this chapter that valuations depending upon building or building land are essentially within the province of the architect. But as valuations for Railway and Improvement compensations ramify into one and the other, as well as into agricultural land, a portion of the subject into which we do not consider it desirable here to enter, we will only notice that, as regards the former, there are several items, beyond those already mentioned, to be taken into consideration. A man holding a property, and dispossessed against his will, has a right to be paid for his interests being so injuriously affected, hence an item for "compulsory sale" is allowed; this was formerly as much as 30 per cent. for house property, now it is only 10 per cent.; while for land, from 10 to 25 per cent. is obtained, according to circumstances. With certain exceptions, the purchase of lands compulsorily is placed under the provisions of the Statute 8 Vict. cap. 18, "The Land Clauses Act." The assessment of the items usually consists of the following heads:-I. The value of the property taken. II. Any reversionary or prospective advantage the owner may be likely to receive at any time; to be estimated in present money. III. Any advantage the owner may have by carrying on a trade, business, or profession, in a locality; whether the same would be utterly destroyed, or a portion be taken with him. IV. The cost of removing, or loss by forced sale. V. The value of the portion only of the property (if so taken), and amount of damage the remainder may sustain in consequence of the severance; this is usually called consequential damage. VI. If a portion only be taken, and that portion injuriously divides the remainder of the property, the estimated amount of damage is known as severance. VII. Compensation for loss of time, trouble, and expense, in finding a new investment; loss of interest; the parting with property to which one is attached to and has an interest in; and other losses by being forced to give up a property and seek new. This forms the item of compulsory sale.

CHAP. II.

CIVIL AND ECCLESIASTICAL DILAPIDATIONS.

The architect, in the course of business, may be commissioned to ascertain the extent of neglect on the part of an occupant in keeping premises in proper order according to the terms upon which the property is held by him. In civil cases it is not usual for the lessor to exercise a power, generally reserved to him in leases, of causing his architect to inspect the premises from time to time to detect dilapidation; but it is usual for the lessor to cause such an inspection (at a reasonable period, so that the repairs may be done) before the expiration of the term: this reasonable period may vary from two to twenty-six weeks, more or less. After such inspection or survey, a notice to repair dilapidations according to its appended schedule is served upon the tenant, who may either execute the works within the term, or (unless he can compound with the lessor for a sum to be ascertained under arbitration) take the responsibility of paying the charges of the tradesmen employed by the lessor after the premises have been surrendered, to which a compensation for loss of rent is naturally added; but this arrangement, if adopted, is a very exceptional procedure. It will be evident that in cases where a lease expires and is not to be renewed before other suitable premises can be obtained, the latter method of action may be desirable; but generally, and especially in the case of a dwelling-house, the cheapest, if the most inconvenient, course is for the tenant to have a survey made for himself and to get the repairs executed within the term. In ecclesiastical cases the survey previous to the end of occupancy is rarely, if ever, practicable; and a sum must be ascertained under arbitration. According to the usual tenor of leases, the lessor expects that the premises shall be delivered, at the expiration of a term, in as good condition as the use and wear during the time will permit, and the lessee undertakes to make good any injury which the premises may have suffered through accident, neglect, or intention; these conditions apply, not only to what was originally demised, but to whatever may have been erected during his occupation. In ecclesiastical cases the principle, as will hereafter be explained, is rather different. It may be noticed here that the term wear and tear is a popular mistake which the law does not support; use and wear is legitimate, tear is dilapidation.

CHAP. II.' CIVIL AND ECCLESIASTICAL DILAPIDATIONS.

1099

In civil dilapidations a tenant is bound, according to his covenant, specific or general, but never beyond maintaining and upholding, unless the conditions of repair are so bad that no measures short of reconstruction are consistent with safety, or possible from the extent of decay. His liability is not supposed to extend to such defects as only indicate age, so long as the efficiency of the part still remains. But if the effects of use or age have ǝroceeded so far as to destroy the part, or its efficiency in the structure, the tenant is liable, it being the presumption that at the commencement of the term the tenant was satisfied that every part was sufficiently strong to last to the close. On the same presumption the degree of liability of the tenant is regulated by the actual condition of the premises at any time, as specified in his covenant, and admits of no extenuation by reason of dilapidations existing at the commencement of his term, as he is presumed to have taken the proper course to guard himself against the occurrence of undue liability. In extreme cases, the liability of a tenant extends to the rebuilding of a party wall condemned as unsafe, to reconstruction after fire, &c., unless specially excepted. In fact, under the natural and the legal favour which the lessor enjoys, the person proposing to become the lessee should employ a professional surveyor, not only to inspect the apparent, and as far as he can the hidden, state of the building, but also to check the conditions contained in the draft of the lease, which are sometimes extravagant when applied to an old and worn-out fabric, though they might be reasonable as regards a new structure.

Whatever the tenant has power to remove during the term cannot be chargeable with dilapidations. Upon this point the old rule is, that whatever is fixed to the freehold cannot be removed by the tenant: thus a lessee may erect barns or sheds or any building upon wooden or stone or other blocks laid on the surface of the ground, and take them down, if he please, without substituting anything in their place; but if the barns are fixed into the ground, they immediately become the property of the lessor. There seems, however, to be an exception in respect of buildings erected for the purposes of trade: hence not only coppers and ovens may be taken away, but workshops and the like erected by the tenant for his particular trade. This exception seems at first to have applied only to wooden buildings; but Lord Kenyon held that a brick chimney would prevent a tenant from removing a building, and decided that its being on a brick foundation would not do it. Though this opinion was not held by Lord Ellenborough, yet it was not because the buildings were of brick, but because they were erected for the purposes of agriculture, and not of trade. It is to be remembered, in all cases, that a lessee is bound to leave the premises in as good condition after the removal of fixtures as though they had never existed: thus, if a marble be substituted for a wooden chimney-piece, when the former is removed, the latter, or one of equal value, must be replaced. If a partition be put up and taken away, all damages to the adjacent work must be repaired.

The general rule for determining what injuries are considered dilapidations, is to ascertain what is fair wear without dilapidation arising from accident or neglect. Injury by accident is that which happens suddenly, and perceptibly differing from wear, which occurs only by lengthened use. Thus the nosing of a step worn away is not dilapidation; but if such be broken away instead of worn, it is a dilapidation. It may be said that accident is defined here with too much latitude, inasmuch as it takes account of that which occurs without apparent reason at any particular time; but we use the term in common language, and may cite as an example, that if the timbers of a floor decay, the floor will yield, even without a load upon it. When accident occurs, such alone does not limit the extent of the dilapidation, but also such injuries to the building as follow in its train. Thus, if the weather-boarding of a building decay from age, so long as the covering will keep out wet, it is no dilapidation; but if broken in any part, that is a dilapidation; and if from want of reparation any of the internal parts of the building be injured, such injury is a dilapidation: so if timber or timbers belonging to any part of a house merely decay, if it or they be still sufficient for the support of the house, no dilapidation can be chargeable; but if such timber or timbers give way, they must be replaced, and all parts made good which suffered by their failure. Waste, in law, is insufferable, even in freeholds which are held for lives only. According to Woodfall (Landlord und Tenant), "waste may be done in houses by pulling them down or suffering them to be uncovered, whereby the rafters and other timbers of the house become rotten; but the bare suffering them to be uncovered, without rotting the timber, is not waste: so if a house be uncovered when the tenant cometh in, it is no waste in the tenant to suffer the same to fall down." In external covering, however, it seems that decay arising from inattention to it is dilapidation, even though no accident be the cause. It is always considered that though painting neglected is not itself a dilapidation, yet where decay arises from it, it is one. Broken glass is not considered a dilapidation, unless there be more than one crack in the pane. Some, however, contend that while the glass is sufficiently entire to exclude the wind and weather, no waste is assignable. Generally it seems then to be the rule, that where accident occurs, it is a dilapidation.

In the preceding paragraph the word neglect has naturally occurred; dilapidation from

neglect being very often followed by dilapidation by accident: the latter term is still more nearly connected with the word misuse, which occupies the place here given to “accident" in the Report upon Dilapidations, published in 1844 by the Royal Institute of British Architects. This Report does not define its meaning of the word misuse; it is clearly not the meaning in which the term is generally employed; for the Report says, “If the effects of use or age have proceeded so far as to destroy the part or its efficiency in the structure, this argues neglect or misuse." The student will find it advantageous to sturdy the Report, and especially the specification contained therein.

This specification instructs the mason" in cases of broken nosings, or of the treads being worn to such an extent as to render the passing up and down dangerous," to piece as described the step; and also directs the joiner "to put nosings to stairs where partially defective, and treads where wholly so." There is in appearance a contradiction between these views upon worn steps and that given in the commencement of this chapter; but the practised surveyor will see that they are easily reconciled, and that his judgment must decide which is, and which is not, fair use and wear. It is to be regretted that the clear and discriminating section on dilapidations in Chambers and Tattersall, Laws relating to Building, 1845, contains a sweeping condemnation of this Report, which is in no way authorised by the evidence adduced.

We have added to the usual definition of dilapidation, namely any injury through accident, misuse, or neglect, the word intention; and the propriety of the addition, as meaning something different from wilful waste, will be obvious. The erection of a photographer's room on the top of a house in one street may be deemed an injury, and be claimed as dilapidation by a lessor, who would demand the removal of it and the restoration of the roof; while in another street, and within a few yards of this dilapidation, the same lessor might consider the same work (if judiciously executed) an improvement which he would not allow to be removed. So also a grated iron door, instead of the common wooden one, and similar alterations, may become dilapidations of intention at the pleasure of the lessor. There is another point on which surveyors have frequently differed, namely the insertion of nails and screws for the suspension of frames of pictures. &c. This inay be now considered to be determined by the judgment in the case of Martin and another v. Roe (1857), where hot house frames, bedded in mortar on brick walls, had been removed without damage except what was unavoidable to the mortar. Lord Campbell said that, "in considering this question, we treat the removal by the plaintiff as having been in fact effected without injury to the freehold. In all cases of this kind, injury to the freehold must be spoken of with less than legal strictness. A screw or a nail can scarcely be drawn without some injury; and when all the harm done is that which is unavoidable to the mortar laid on brick walls, this is so trifling that the law, which is reasonable, will regard it as none." Among surveyors it has been held that what is nailed belongs to the freehold, but that which can be unscrewed does not, the careful withdrawal of the screw enabling the tenant to make good the hole.

Although there is a general impression that only damage of broken glass can be claimed from a yearly tenant, he is to use the building in a husbandlike manner, and is bound to fair and tenantable repairs so far as to keep it wind and water tight and to prevent waste or decay.

It used to be supposed that the judgment in the case of Wise v. Medcalf (1829) contained an exposition of the whole law on the subject of ecclesiastical dilapidation as far as regarded incumbents; and the decision, which is contained in the following words, should be always in the mind of the surveyor:-"Upon the whole, we are of opinion the incumbent was bound to maintain the parsonage (which we must assume upon this case to have been suitable in point of size and other respects to the benefice) and also the chancel, and to keep them in good and substantial repair; restoring and rebuilding when necessary, according to the original form, without addition or modern improvement; and that he was not bound to supply or maintain anything in the nature of ornament, to which painting (unless necessary to preserve exposed timbers from decay) and whitewashing, and papering belong.' This decision is held to establish the principle that the executors of a deceased incumbent are bound to perform those repairs which are necessary to prevent decay, and to use all reasonable means for preventing any future decay. The case of Mason v. Lambert (1848) showed that perpetual curates were liable as incumbents for these dilapidations. We have therefore to add, in ecclesiastical cases, any provision against prospective injury; such as paint necessary to preserve exposed woodwork from decay, the insertion of ties to plates taking the feet of rafters, the underpinning of walls at cracks showing continual settlement: these might be entitled dilapidations of precaution, and ought to include the immediate destruction of any erections made by a late incumbent which were suitable to his private fortune rather than to the benefice as seems to be indicated in the judgment given in the case of Martin and another v. Ro (1857), wherein it is observed that. as to any matter of needless expense or luxury of ornament by which the present incumbent has gratified his own taste or increased his ow

comfort, he is not only not bound, but he ought not, to transmit it to his successor." The principle thus stated is directly opposite to that which, as we have above observed, regulates civil cases, namely, that the occupier must keep in repair whatever may have been erected during his occupation. The judgment just cited continues in these words: "If the successor may recover damages from the executor after such things have been removed by the testator, there can be no doubt he in his turn must maintain it; and if he maintain it he must also restore, and even rebuild when decayed; so that the benefice might become permanently saddled with a useless burden." The duty to remove such erections does not, however, appear quite to have been thrown upon the estate of the erector: the same judgment says, "the case now supposed is that of an erection, which, if the deceased had left out of repair, his successor could not have maintained any action for dilapidations, which he himself therefore would not be bound to keep in repair, which imposes no burden on him, and which he may remove; for it would be unreasonable to hold that he might not remove, however useless or unsuitable to the living, or even inconvenient to the occupation of the arsonage or glebe, that which for one of these reasons he was not bound to keep in repair." Finally we would quote from the same judgment: "with regard to an ecclesiastical benefice, the character 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 permanently and irrevocably from the personal estate." In this case the plaintiffs (executors) were held justified in removing the framework and sashes, valued at 3001, of two hot houses, and might apparently have removed also the brickwork, repairing any waste or damage to the freehold. With respect to that damage we have already referred to this

case.

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 freehold. The other man receives a salary to do certain services, the use of the house being a portion of that salary. In the latter case, if for a man's own private convenience he lays out a large sum on the freehold, that expenditure 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, but quite foreign to the habits of a future rector of the village coming in as an ordinary occupant.

Such are the general principles of the law of dilapidations; these, 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 with the remainder of a lease to any one who will give something for it; or who (if the lessor be not careful) assigns it to a man of straw.

CHAP. III.

CALCULATION OF INTEREST.

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 5 per cent., it signifies that for every hundred pounds the lender is to receive five pounds per annum during the continuance of the loan. The solution of this question, which 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 compound 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 1054 Let a = principal. Its amount at the end of the year is found by saying, if 100 gives 105, what will a give? and we answer be also expressed 23 xa, or a +x a

105a 21a
100
20'

which

may

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 the given principal in two years, and so on. Hence the annual increases to the principal may be easily computed. Suppose, for instance, the principal of 1000l. Expressing the values in decimal fractions, it will be worth

The method above exhibited would, however, in calculations for a number of years, become very laborious, and it may be abridged in the following manner.

212

Let the present principal = a; now, since a principal of 201 will amount to 211. at the end of a year, the principal a will amount to xa at the end of that time. At the end of the following year the same principal will amount to a = () xa. This principal of two years will, the year after, amount to (2)3 x a, which will therefore be the principal of three years; increasing in this manner, at the end of four years the principal becomes (}})+ x a. After a century it will amount to (3)100 x a, and in general (2)" xa is the amount of the principal after n years; a formula serving to determine the amount of principal after any number of years.

n

a

The interest of 5 per cent., which has been taken in the above calculation, determined the fraction. Had the interest been reckoned at 6 per cent. the principal would at the end of a year be (188) × a; at the end of two years to (188)2 x a; and at the end of n years to (488) " × a. Again, if the interest be at 4 per cent. the principal a will, after " years, be (18)" x a. Now all these formulæ are easily resolved by logarithms; for if, according to the first supposition, the question be (2)” × a, this will be L.(}})” + L.a, and as (2)" is a power, we have L. (3)"-nL. : so that the logarithm of the principal required is =RX L.+L.a, and the logarithm of the fraction = L. 21 - L. 20.

n

We shall now consider what the principal of 1000l. will amount to at compound interest of 5 per cent. at the end of 100 years. Here n=100. Hence the logarithm of the principal required will be 100L.+L.1000, calculated as under:

=

:

51189300 Logarithm of the principal required, from the characteristic whereof the principal must be a number of six figures, and by the tables it will appear to be 131,5011. In the case of a principal of 34521. at 6 per cent. for sixty-four years, we have a=3452 and n=64. Principal at the end of the first year therefore = 488=33. Hence the logarithm of the principal sought=64 × L. + L.3452, which will be found to amount to 143,7631.

106

When the number of years is very great, errors of considerable magnitude may arise from the logarithms not being sufficiently extended in the decimal places; but as our object here is only to show the principle on which these calculations are founded, we do not think it necessary further to pursue that subject.

There is another case which now requires our consideration; it is that of not only adding the interest annually to the principal, but increasing it every year by a new sum = b. The original principal a would then increase in the following manner :

After 1 year, a + b

This principal evidently consists of two parts, whereof the first (3)"a, and the other, taken inversely, forms the series b+21b + (?!) 2% + (?})3b + .... (24) "-1b. This last series i evidently a geometrical progression, whose exponent. Its sum, therefore, will be found by first multiplying the last term (3)"-16 by the exponent, which gives (?)"b. tract the first term b, and we have the remainder (3)"b-b; and lastly, dividing by the ex.

Sub