PUGH v. GRIFFITH. [ *841 ] this record as to make it necessary to comment *upon them. Some of them seem to require that a demand should be made by the sheriff in particular cases; but the necessity of a demand in the present case is obviated, because there was nobody on whom a demand could be made. Upon the whole of the case, we are of opinion that there should be judgment for the defendant. Judgment for defendant. 1838. Jan. 30. [ 951 ] [ *952 ] REG. v. GUEST AND OTHERS (1). (7 Adol. & Ellis, 951-956; S. C. 2 N. & P. 663; W. W. & D. 651 ; 7 L. J. (N. S.) M. C. 38.) In a rate laid upon buildings to which machinery is attached for the purpose of manufacture, the real property ought to be assessed according to its actual value as combined with the machinery, without considering whether the machinery be real or personal property, and liable, or not, to distress or seizure under a fi. fa., or whether it would go to the heir or executor, or, at the expiration of a lease, to the landlord or tenant. ON appeal against a rate made for the relief of the poor of the parish of Merthyr Tydvil, Glamorganshire, the following case was submitted to this Court by the Sessions: The appellants are the lessees and occupiers of the Dowlais iron works in the said parish, and, as connected with these works, they are also the lessees and occupiers of certain iron mines and coal mines. (The case then stated a point on which an objection was taken and the Sessions made an amendment, and which was not referred to this Court.) The appellants further objected to the amount of the rate upon their iron works, because several engines and other machinery used for working the iron mines mentioned in the rate, and also the several engines and other machinery used in the process of manufacturing iron from the iron stone, were, as the appellants alleged, not fixed to the freehold so as to be regarded in law as real property rateable to the relief of the poor, and it was proved that personal property was not charged to the poor-rate in the parish. The mode of erecting such engines and machinery was (1) Cited in judgments: Laing v. Bishopwearmouth (1878) 3 Q. B. D. 299, 305, 47 L. J. M. C. 41, 44; Tyne Boiler Works v. Longbenton Overseers (1886) 18 Q. B. Div. 81, 89, 56 L. J. M. C. 8, 11.-R. C. proved to be as follows. The soil is first excavated to a certain depth for the purpose of laying down foundation walls of strong masonry. Into the walls, when built, are introduced balk and other strong timber which are covered and secured by means of bolts and other contrivances to and by an iron platform. Upon this platform are placed frames made of wood and iron, which frames are inserted into the walls of the buildings in which the engine and machinery are enclosed; these frames then serve as the foundations of the engines and machinery, which are attached to the frames by means of cotterels or keys and jibs in such a manner as to be tightened, or slackened, or altogether removed, at pleasure. Such removal may be effected from and out of the buildings which enclose them without injury either to the engines or machinery or to the buildings or the soil, and without displacing any part thereof. The machinery thus described is referred to in amount of value in the schedule No. 2 of the rate, as thereunto annexed. The iron mines occupied by the appellants are situate in the parish of Merthyr Tydvil, and within a short distance from the works, the engines and the machinery comprised in the rate. As to such of the engines as are applicable to the working of the iron mines, whether such engines are fixed to the freehold or not, the Sessions allowed the objection and amended the rate accordingly; and no question is raised as to such amendment. The Sessions, with the amendments before mentioned, firmed the rate, subject to the opinion of this Court. con The The schedule referred to consisted of several columns. first was headed "Landlords," and contained the names of the Marquis of Bute, and Messrs. Guest, Lewis & Co. The second was headed "Persons rated," and contained the names of Messrs. Guest, Lewis & Co. The third specified the "Property assessed," fixed, and moveable. Among the articles of the first description were blast furnaces, casting-houses, foundry, blastengines, &c. Of the latter, blast-engines, furnaces, engines for rolling, "machinery" (described generally as such), &c. The fourth and fifth columns, headed "Schedule No. 1" and Schedule No. 2," stated the values of the two descriptions of property respectively. 66 REG. 2. GUEST. [ 953 ] REG. v. GUEST. [ *954 ] The question for this Court was stated to be, whether the appellants are liable to be rated for the various properties referred to in the schedule No. 2 of the rate before set forth, or whether the rate is unequal in respect of the appellants being rated for them. If the Court should be of opinion that the properties charged in schedule 2 ought not to be charged, the rate was to be amended accordingly. The case was argued in Hilary Term, 1837 (1). Maule and John Evans, in support of the order of Sessions: The articles in schedule 2 were properly taken into account in the rate. On a question as to rating, if the article is practically connected with the real property, and forms a part of the means of enjoying it, the Court will not inquire with nicety whether it would fall within any of the cases which have arisen between heir and executor or landlord and tenant, or upon the subject of reputed ownership. The principle is that, where real property derives an increased annual value from a personal chattel annexed to it, the rate must be calculated on such increased value: 1 Nol. P. L. 81-84 (4th edit.), and Rex v. St. Nicholas, Gloucester (2), and other cases cited in those pages. The present case is stronger than those, as to the connection of the machinery with the real property. In some of those instances the building and the annexed property were demised together; but, with reference to the poor law, that circumstance creates no distinction. would be absurd to say that, in rating a house built for the purpose of working machinery, the overseers should assess the building as a shell, denuding it of that for the sake of which it exists. Nor can it reasonably be contended that, if the machinery be rateable, but there is a portion which might be subtracted without damage, a deduction should be made for so much. It Sir J. Campbell, Attorney-General, E. V. Williams, and The rate here is on buildings and machinery; but part of the machinery is personal property, and therefore ought not to be (1) January 25th. Before Lord Denman, Ch. J., Williams and Coleridge, JJ. (2) Cald. 262; S. C. note (a) to Rex v. Hogg, 1 R. R. 375 (1 T. R. 723). assessed in a parish where no other personal property is rated. The articles which, the appellants contend, have been improperly rated, are removable, and would go to the executor, not the heir, might be taken in execution, and would be the subject of trover. Messrs. Guest & Co. have not the freehold; they are lessees, and may remove these articles at the end of their term. In Rex v. St. Nicholas, Gloucester (1), the subject of rate was a "machinehouse;" and it was assessed more highly on account of the increased value of the house, derived from a weighing-machine. Here the appellants are rated for buildings, and for machinery, part of which is personal property. The light in which such property would be considered in an action between outgoing and incoming tenants, in a case of settlement, or on a question of reputed ownership, appears from Davis v. Jones (2), Rex v. Otley (3), Horn v. Baker (4), Storer v. Hunter (5), Clark v. Crownshaw (6), Coombs v. Beaumont (7). The law as to fixed machinery is summed up by Lord LYNDHURST, C. B., in Trappes v. Harter (8). (COLERIDGE, J. mentioned Wansbrough v. Maton (9).) The COURT desired to see the original rate. Cur, adv. vult. The rate-book having been submitted to the Court in Easter Term, 1837, LORD DENMAN, Ch. J. now delivered judgment as follows: This was an appeal against a rate on the ground that many articles of machinery employed by the appellant in his manufacture were personal property, and not subject to be rated. The Sessions proposed numerous *questions to us (10); but we did not think their statement so full as it might have been, and we desired to see a copy of the rate, in the hope that we might be (1) Cald. 262. (2) 20 R. R. 396 (2 B. & Ald. 165). (6) 3 B, & Ad. 804. (7) 39 R. R. 400 (5 B. & Ad. 72). (8) 2 Cr. & M. 153; 3 Tyr. 603. 884). (10) A case, with many questions, had been sent up; but it was afterwards reduced to the form in which the present report gives it. REG. v. GUEST. enabled, from the description there given, to specify the articles that ought to be included. In this we are disappointed, and can only direct that the rate should finally stand on the general principle which we have lately had occasion to lay down (1), that real property ought to be rated according to its actual value, as combined with the machinery attached to it, without considering whether the machinery be real or personal property, so as to be liable to distress or seizure under a fieri facias, or whether it would descend to the heir or executor, or belong, at the expiration of a lease, to landlord or tenant. Rate to stand accordingly. (1) See Rex v. The Birmingham and Staffordshire Gas Light Company, p. 572, ante (6 Ad. & El. 634). |