De Beauvoir v Owen
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 February 1850 |
| Date | 07 February 1850 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 72
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C. 19 L J Ex 177 Referred to, Maharana Fattehsangp Jaswatsanp v Dessap Kalhanrap Hekoomutrap, 1873, L R 1 Ind Ap 54, Jones v Withers, 1896, 74 L T 572 Considered, Lort Zouche v Dalbrac, 1875, L R 10 Ex 177 Approved, Irish Land Commission v Grant, 1884, 10 A C 27 Applied, Howitt v Earl Harrington, (1893) 2 Ch 497 Discussed, Irish Land Commission v. Jenkin, 1888, 24 L R Ir 47
de beauvoir v owen Feb 7, 1850 -A defendant in replevin avowed the taking litq.oi the goods for arrears of an ancient quit-rent issuing out of a tenement held of him as lord of a certain manor by fealty and 9s rent The plaintiff pleaded (inter aha) non tenuit The last payment was made on the 25th of Jatmaiy, 1825, for rent due on the llth of October, 1824 The distress was made on the 13th of May, 1845 -Held, (on eiror in the Exchequer Chamber, affirming the judgment of the Couit of Exchequer,) that, by the operation of the 2 & 3 Will 4, c 27, sa 2, 3, and 34, the rent was extinguished by the lapse of twenty years from the day on which the last payment was made, and that the limitation, need not be pleaded specially, but was available under the plea of non tenuit [S C. 19 L J Ex 177 Referred to, Mahaiana Fattehsangji Jaswatsangji v Des^ai Kallianraip Hekoomutraiji, 1873, L E 1 Ind Ap 54 , Jones v Witluns, 1896, 74 L T 5t2 Considered, Lord Zovche v Dalbiac, 1875, L E 10 Ex 177 Approved, Irish Land Commission v Grant, 1884, 10 A C 27 Applied, Howitt v Earl Harrington, [1893] 2 Ch 497 Discussed, Irish Land Cormmision v. Jenhn, 1888, 24 L E Ir 47] In this case, a special verdict having been agreed to,(a) and judgment entered up, the defendant below brought a writ of error thereon The declaration was in replevin, for a cart distrained in a ceitain barn, in the palish of West Ilsley, in the county of Berkshire Avowry That, at the said time when &c , the said barn in which &c , was parcel of a certain tenement called Hodcott Farm, with the appurtenances, situate and being in the county of Berks, and holden of the manor of Stratneld Moitimei, within the said, county, by fealty, and the rent of 9s yeaily, to be paid at the Feast-day of St Michael in every year, according to the old style and computation of time formerly used m this kingdom, of which said manor the defendant, before and at the timewheu &c , was the owner, and thereof lawfully possessed, and because the plaintiff held and occupied the said barn, with the appurtenances, in which &c, at the said time when &c, and because the sum of 21 14a of the rent aforesaid, for six years next befofe and ending at the Feast-day of St Michael, which was in the year of out Lord 1844, according to the said old style, at the said time when &c, was then due, in arrear, and unpaid to the defendant, he the [167] defendant well avows the taking of the said! cart, goods, and chattels in the said barn in which &c, so being a parcel of the afonesaid tenement called Hodcott Farm, with the apputtenances, and holden of the said manor of Stratfield Mortimer as aforesaid, and justly &c , as a distress for the aforesaid rent bo then being due, in arrear, and unpaid to the defendant, according to the form of the statute m such case made and provided Verification and prjyer of j'udgment, and a return of the said cart, goods, and chattels, together with the defendant's damages, &c Plea in bar First, that the said bain in which &c, was not parcel of the said (a) See Owen v De Beauvmr, 16 M. & W 547 5 EX-168, DE BEAUVOIR V. OWEN 73 tenement called Hodcott Farm, in manner and foim as in the avowiy alleged Secondly, that the said barn in which &c, was not holden of the said manor, in manner and form as in the avowry alleged Thirdly, that the defendant was not the ownet and possessed of the &aid manoi, in mannei and form as in the avowiy alleged Fourthly, that no pait of the said rent was due 01 in atteai, in manner and foim as in the avowiy alleged Issues thereon The special verdict stated the following facts -That long before and on the nth of May, 1845, the bain in the dec 1.nation mentioned was parcel of a certain tenement called Hodcott Farm, with the appurtenances,, situate and being in the county of Beikshire, and that the same tenement was before and oir the llth of October, 1824, holden of the manor of Stratheld Mortimer within the said county, by fealty and the rent of 9s yearly, to be paid at the Feast clay of St Michael in eveiy year, accoicling to the old style and computation of time formerly used in this kingdom The barn in the declaration mentioned was parcel of the same tenement during all the time last aforesaid, and holden of the said manoi, by reason of being such parcel as aforesaid, during all the time last afoiesairl, and the [168] said bain continued to be and was parcel of the same tenement and holden of the same manor as aforesaid, on and from the said llth of October, 1824, until and on the Uth of May, 1845, and thence afterwards, unless by reason of no tent having been paid subsequent to the payment of 31. 12s herernafter mentioned, and ot the statute .i & 4 Will 4, c '27, the s.ud bam ceased to be so holden as aforesaid On the 15th of January, 1825, the sum of.il 12s was paid by Edward Tull, the then possessor arid occupier of the said tenement, to the defendant, as and foi the atrears of quit-rent due up to the 1 Ith of October, being the Feast day of St Mrchael, according to the old style and computation of time formerly used in this kingdom, in the year of our Lord 1824, irr respect of the said tenement, to the defendant as loid of the said manor The defendant, before and at the time last aforesaid, and at the time of the making of the distress, was the lord and owner and possessed of the said manor, by reason ot which payment, all an eats of the said rent due in respect of the said tenement up to the said llth of October, 1824, were fully paid and satisfied , and nothing was paid in respect of any part of the said rent after the sard 15th of January, lK2j; arid on the 13th of May, 1845, the defendant, then being such owner and possessed of the sard manor as aforesaid, took the said carts, goods, and chattels in the declaration mentioned, in the sard barn, as a distress for six years'arrear of the said rent alleged to have accrued due to him on and up to the llth of October, 1844, being the Feast-day of St Michael, accoiding to the old style and computation of time fojmetly used in this krngdom The sard barn in which &c , was parcel of the sard tenement called Hodcott Farm, in manner and form as in the avowry alleged, and the defendant was the owner, and po&sessed of the said manor, in mannet and form as in the avowiy alleged [169] Eirois having beerr assigned thereon, the case was argued, February 5, 184 9, (a) by Cowlrng, foi the plaintiff in error The first question is, whether the period of twenty years, mentioned in the i & 4 Will 4, c 27, commenced running from the time of the last payment of rent, viz the 15th of January, 18J5, or from the time when the hrstarrear of rent accrued due, vrz on the llth of October, 1825 That depends upon the construction of the 2nd and Jrd sectrons of the 3 it 4 Will 4, c ^7 (b) That Act does not piofess to repeal any former [170] statute, or to (a) Before Patteson, J, Coleridge, J, Coltman, J, M.inle, J, Cresswell, J, Erie, J , Wightman, J , and Williams, J. (A) The following sections were lefened to - Sect 2 "That, after the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland, Continued in the Name of The Irish Land Commission, Plaintiffs; Patrick Grant and Others, Defendants
...69 M. & W. 113. Paget v. Foley 2 Bing N. C. 679.,688. Doe d. Angell v. Angell 9 Q. B. 328. De Beauvoir v. OwenENRENR 16 M. & W. 567; 5 Exch. 166. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners v. Lord Sligo 5 Ir. Ch. R. 49. The Dean of Ely v. BlissENR 2 De G. M. & G. 459. Ecclesiastical Commissioners of ......
-
O'Reilly v Granville
...2 All E.R. 577. 17 [1932] 1 K.B. 485. 18 [1944] K.B. 44; [1943] 2 All E.R. 577. 19 [1957] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 396. 20 See p. 92, ante. 21 (1850) 5 Exch. 166, 22 [1969] I.R. 261. ...
-
Attwood and Others v Sellar and Company
...what is conceded on the other side, that is a wrong dictum. The oases of Job V. Langton (6 E. & B, 779) and Walthew v. Mavrojani (L. Rep. 5 Ex. 166; 22 L. T. Rep. N.S. 310; 3 Mar. Law Gas. O.S. 382) are in the appellants' favour. There the court points out that if the re-loading of the good......
-
Carey v Doyne
...v. WoodsENR 1 Keen, 16. Dowell v. BurkeUNK 9 Ir. Eq. Rep. 83. Incorporated Society v. Richards 1 Dr. & War. 258. De Beauxoir v. OwenENR 5 Exch. 166. Arnott v. RedfernENR 3 Bing. 353. Newton v. Aldous 2 M. & K. 421. Marshall v. PooleENR 13 East, 98. Jenkins v. PerryENR 3 Y. & C., Exch., 178.......