DILAPIDATIONS, in English law, is the name given to the waste committed by the incumbent of an ecclesiastical living. By the general law a tenant for life has no power to cut down timber, destroy buildings, &c. (voluntary waste), or to let buildings fall into disrepair (permissive waste). In the eye of the law an incumbent is a tenant for life of his benefice, and any waste, voluntary or permissive, on his part must be made good by his administrators to his successor in office. The principles on which such dilapidations are to be ascertained, and the application of the money payable in respect thereof, depend partly on old ecclesiastical law and partly on recent Acts of Parliament. Questions as to dilapidations usually arise in respect of the residence house and other buildings belonging to the living. Inclosures, hedges, ditches, and the like are included in things “of which the beneficed person hath the burden and charge of reparation.” In a leading case (Ross v. Adcock, 37 Law Journal, C.P. 290) it was said that the court was acquainted with no precedent or decision extending the liability of the executors of a deceased incumbent to any species of waste beyond dilapidation of the house, chancel, or other buildings or fences of the benefice. And it has been held that the mere mismanagement or miscultivation of the ecclesiastical lands will not give rise to an action for dilapidations. To place the law relating to dilapidations on a more satisfactory footing, the Act 34 and 35 Vict. c. 43 was passed. The buildings to which the Act applies are defined to be such houses of residence, chancels, walls, fences, and other buildings and things as the incumbent of the benefice is by law and custom bound to maintain in repair. In each diocese a surveyor is to be appointed ...