Agreed. Long leases such as leases for lives, were usually at less than a
market rent. The buyer of property would thus need to assess how much the
value of the property was only reversionary, and would not generate income
until after the lease expired. Generally there was no obligation to allow
the tenants to add a life. The exceptions would be (1) if the custom of the
manor required it (for copyhold), which would probably mean that custom also
had to fix the amount of the fine payable (2) a lease contained a covenant
to renew it. Where you had less than three lives it may well have been that
the landlord was unwilling to renew.
Copyholds usually could be sold, by surrendering the property to the use of
the purchaser, and the purchaser being admitted. Leases were normally
assignable, but sometimes only with the landlord's licence; it depended on
the terms of the lease.
Peter King
49, Stourbridge Road,
Hagley,
Stourbridge
West Midlands
DY9 0QS
01562-720368
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: From: Local-History list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Dave Leach
Sent: 01 November 2008 00:37
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Leases for three lives
In this specific case it seems unlikely, although possible, that Sir
Thomas had any interest, direct or otherwise, in the property leased by
William Turnbull. What might be surmised is that, whoever it was who added
Sir Thomas’ name to the lease, was aware that Sir Thomas, at that time,
whenever that was, had a reputation as a, presumably young, hale and
hearty fellow, with a long life expectancy. Therefore it is quite likely
that William Turnbull had leased the property for some considerable time
before Sir Thomas’ death.
On the question of the sale or assignment of property subject to a lease
for lives, I have seen C19th Sale Particulars of an estate in Lancashire,
listing each farm and cottage as a separate lot, with the names and ages
of the three surviving lives (or sometimes fewer if replacement names had
not been added). I get the impression that this was normal practice. This
was, presumably, so that a prospective buyer of the estate, or of the
individual lot, could assess the likely value of agreements to add names
to the lease, or the potential value of a completely new lease, when and
if the existing lease fell in on the death of the last life.
I don’t know if it was possible for leaseholders to sell or assign a
property on a lease for lives independently of the landowner. Presumably
this would depend on the terms of the lease, and/or on the customs of the
particular manor, if there was one.
Dave Leach
|