The court considered the result where the freehold of what had formerly been waste of the manor became severed from the lordship.
Held: It ceased to be part of the manor. Lord Denning MR described the historical basis of the ownership of land by Lords of the manor: ‘In mediaeval times the manor was the nucleus of English rural life. It was an administrative unit of an extensive area of land. The whole of it was owned originally by the lord of the manor. He lived in the big house called the manor house. Attached to it were many acres of grassland and woodlands called the park. These were the ‘demesne lands’ which were for the personal use of the lord of the manor. Dotted all round were the enclosed homes and land occupied by the ‘tenants of the manor.’ They held them by copyhold tenure. Their titles were entered in the court rolls of the manor. They were nearly equivalent to freehold, but the tenants were described as ‘tenants of the manor.’ The rest of the manorial lands were the ‘waste lands of the manor.’ The tenants of the manor had the right to graze their animals on the waste lands of the manor. Although the demesne land was personal to the lord of the manor, nevertheless he sometimes granted to the tenants of the manor the right to graze their animals on it, or they acquired it by custom. In such a case their right to graze on the demesne land was indistinguishable from their right to graze on the waste lands of the manor, so long as it remained open to them and uncultivated, although there might be hedges and gates to keep the cattle from straying. So much so that their rights over it became known as a ‘right of common’ and the land became known as ‘common land.’
In the course of time, however, the lordship of the manor became severed from the lands of the manor. This was where the lord of the manor sold off parcels of the land to purchasers. He might, for instance, sell off the demesne lands and convey them as a distinct property. Thenceforward the land ceased to form part of the manor and was held by a freeholder: see Delacherois v. Delacherois (1864) 11 H.L.Cas. 62 , 102-103 by Lord St. Leonards. But no such conveyance could adversely affect the rights of common of those who were entitled to them as tenants of the manor or otherwise. No lord of the manor could, by alienation, deprive those entitled of their rights over it or in respect of it: see Swayne’s case (1609) 8 Co.Rep. 63a and Reg. v. Duchess of Buccleuch (1704) 1 Salk. 358.’
Judges:
Lord Denning MR
Citations:
[1983] 1 QB 360
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Swayne’s case 1609
No lord of the manor could, by alienation, deprive those entitled of their rights over it or in respect of it. . .
Cited – Regina v Duchess of Buccleuch 1704
. .
Cited – Delacherois v Delacherois HL 30-Jul-1864
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Crown Estate Commissioners v Roberts and Another ChD 13-Jun-2008
The defendant claimed ownership as Lord Marcher of St Davids of historical rights in foreshores in Pembrokeshire. The claimants sought removal of his cautions against first registration.
Held: Lewison J explored the history of manorial . .
Cited – Walker and Another v Burton and Another CA 14-Oct-2013
The Burtons had purchased the former Hall of the village of Ireby, and been registered as proprietors of the Lordhsip of the Manor. The villagers had successfully challenged the registration. The Court now considered the circumstances in which the . .
Cited – Littlejohns and Another v Devon County Council and Another CA 6-May-2016
Appeal against rejection of request for registration of land as a common: ‘At the heart of the appeal lies the question of law whether it is possible to acquire a right of common by virtue of an express grant or (as in the present case) user after 2 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.269738