25i
sliare of the land, and be burdened with that servitude; and thesame if it was a servitude of peat for fuel, unless, according tothe latitude of the act, the mosses were agreed to be left undivid-ed, to be possessed in common, as before. If none have interestin the common, but contiguous proprietors of land, the commonis shared out to each, according to the valuation in the cess-booksof these lands of his, to which the right in the common was un-derstood to be attached: if others having interest, without hav-ing contiguous lands, concur, the division is commonly made ac-cording to the actual interest possessed by each.
Lands held in run-ridge, (that is, lands which, though held inseveralty, are possessed in alternate minute divisions), are or-dained by similar provision of the same act 1695, to be disentan-gled into distinct continuous masses.
Such a holding of arable lands, is evidently so inconvenient,and so entirely obstructs all improvement, that, one should think,a common sense of interest would easily lead all concerned toadopt a better arrangement by consent; yet, so untractable arethe generality in regard to meum et tuum, that a compulsatorylaw, to that effect, had been found necessary. Hutcheson, in hisJustice of Peace, seems to think, that our Supreme Court hasbeen rather scrupulous as to the extent of power competent forit to assume, in the execution of this clause of the statute.
There are, no doubt, limits beyond which the compulsatoryconsolidation into distinct single masses of land, held alternatelyin separate smaller masses, might well be considered as an arbi-trary interpretation of the law. Suppose, for instance, there arefour fields lying contiguous, each consisting of 40 or 50 acres,the first and third being the property of A, the second and fourththe property of B, it would seem a stretched interpretation, notat all warranted by the indispensable uses of agriculture, to saythat A should be able to compel B to surrender his second, andaccept of A’s third in exchange, in order that each should havean 80 or 100 acre field, in one mass, instead of having, each,two separate fields of 40 or 50 acres each. But, by some deci-sions, it would appear, that where the fields held alternately con-sisted of more than four acres in each distinct mass, our SupremeCourt have judged the clause relating to separation of run-ridgeas inapplicable.
In enacting the statute of 1695, the Legislature was under noembarrassment from the rights of the Church, the subject oftithes having been previously settled by the decreets-arbitral ofCharles I. an. 1629, as confirmed by act of Parliament in 1633-
Neither does any difficulty occur in practice, from any seigno-rial right of the lord of the manor. No such right is known mScotland ; the common is considered as entirely belonging to theproprietors of those lands to which the use of the common >*found attached; and those who have nothing but an incorpor««