Anderson v Drever and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 May 1835 |
| Date | 21 May 1835 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 132 E.R. 1
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 3 Cl. & F. 314; 6 E. R. 1454 with note.
[1] new cases in the court of common pleas, and other courts. trinity term and the vacation preceding, in the fifth year of the reign of william IV. The Judges who sat in Bane during this term were, Tindal C. J., Park J., Gaselee J., Vaughan J. : in the house of lords. (In Error.) andrews v. drever and others. May 21, 1835. - [S. C. 3 Cl. & F. 314; 6 E. K. 1454 (with note).] , ' Here non-payment of tithes is no answer to a claim of tithes by a lay impropriator.,, This was an action of debt, brought in the Court of King's Bench by the Plaintiffs below against the Defendant below, upon the stat. 2 & 3 Edw. 6, c. 13, for not setting out tithes. ... . ..'.'..'' [2] The declaration stated that the Plaintiffs below were proprietors of the tithes of corn, grain, and hay, of certain lands in the parish of Prestbury, in the county of Chester, and that the Defendant below was occupier of the same lands. It then set forth the subtraction of the tithe by the Defendant, and claimed the treble value. There was a plea of nil debet, and a particular of demand, from which it appeared that the action was brought to recover the value, single or treble, of the tithe of about twenty acres of hay for six years, commencing with 1825, and amounting to 351. 5s. in the whole.; . _ : '.'....-.".:. The cause was tried at the summer assizes 1831, for the county of Chester, before Bplland B., when the Plaintiffs below obtained: a verdict for 105L 15s, being the treble of the amount specified in the particular of the demand, for which sum judgment was entered up accordingly. : . , At the trial a bill of exceptions was tendered to the learned Judge, which having been duly sealed, and error brought thereupon into the Court of Exchequer Chamber, the judgment of the Court below was there affirmed. ; The Defendant below now brought his writ of error into Parliament for reversing both these judgments. , From the bill of exceptions, it appeared that the Plaintiffs below were the lay impropriators of tithes in the parish of Prestbury, but there was no evidence of tithes having ever been taken on or paid for or in respect of the lands occupied by the Defendant below in that parish; whereupon the learned Judge directed the jury that mere non-payment of tithe was no answer to a clainvof the tithe by a lay impropriator; that C. P. x.-l 2 ANDREWS V...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lord Shannon v T. A. Stoughton
...N. C. 13, n. Paget v. FoleyENR 2 Bing. N. C. 679. Jones v. William 5 A. & E. 297. See 2 Ir. Law Rep. 216, 217. Andrews v. DreverENRENR 2 Bing. N. C. 1; S. C. 2 Scott, 1; Cl. & Fin. 337. Fanshaw v. Moore 2 E. & Y. 72. Rose v. Calland Id. 485. Meade v. NorburyENRENR 3 E. & Y. 746; S. C. 2 Pri......