Between Ann Morse and William Morse, Plaintiffs, and John Faulkner, James Shade, and Mary his Wife, Samuel ward, and Hannit his Wife, and Ann Robinson, Defendants
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1817 |
| Date | 01 January 1817 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 145 E.R. 784
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER
S. C. 3 Swans. 429, n.; 36 E. R. 939. See West v. Berney, 1819, 1 Russ. & My. 434; Averall v. Wade, 1835, Ll. & G. T. Sugd. 260; Lyster v. Burroughs, 1837, 1 Dr. & Wal. 171; Jones v. Kearney, 1841, 1 Dr, & War. 159; 1 Con. & L. 34.
[11] between ann morse and william morse, Plaintiffs, and john faulkner, james shade, and mary his Wife, samuel ward, and hannah Ids Wife, AND ann KoB[NSON, Defendant*;. Same day.-One erroneously believing himself entitled to a copyhold was admitted, and sold it; it afterwards descended to him; he died without perfecting the conveyance ; this is a personal equity, and does not bind his heir. Semb. [&. C. 3 Swans. 429, n.; 36 E. R. 936. See West v. Berney, 1819, 1 Buss. & My. 434 ; ''Averall v. Wade, 1835, LI. fe G. T. Sugd. 2GO; Lyster v. Bnrroutjh, 1837, i Dr. & Wai. 171 ; Jones v. Kearney, 1841, 1 Dr. & War. 159; 1 Con. & L. 34.] This was a bill brought to compel the defendants to surrender the copyholds in question in favour of the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs might be quieted in their possession thereof, the defendants having recovered against them in ejectment. (Vide 3 Tern) Rep. 3G5.) The plaintiffs claimed under a surrender and conveyance from William Robinson in 1774. This William Robinson was son and heir of Richard Robinson, then deceased, who was the second nephew of Thomas Giles, the late owner of these copyholds. Some time after Thomas Giles's death, William Robinson claimed to be admitted tenant of these copyholds, as his heir, declaring that his uncle Thomas Robinson, the eldest nephew of Thomas Giles, was dead. Being accordingly admitted by the steward, he immediately sold the premises in the public house where he was admitted, and surrendered them in favour of the purchaser, Richard Morse, under whom the plaintiffs claim, and have been in possession ever since. In truth, Thomas Robinson, the eldest nephew and heir of Thomas Giles, was alive at the time of this surrender, but died afterwards in 1778, leaving his nephew, "William Robinson, his heir at law, and then really entitled to the premises. William Robinson died in 1781, without having ever disturbed or confirmed [12] the title of th$ plaintiffs ò The defendants were his heirs at law, and also heirs of Thomas Giles arid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West v Berney
...410); King v. Melting (1 Vent., 225); Tomlinsson, v. Uighton (1 P. Wms., 149); .Xavilh v. filacket (1 P. Wms., 777); Morxev. Falconer (1 Anstr., 11, 3 Swanst., 429, n.). The vice-chancellor [Sir John Leach]. In Albany's case (1 Rep., Ill) it was held that the reserved power of the grantor m......
-
The Queen against The Lady and Steward of the Manor of Dullingham
...may surrender before admittance, because he has a title by descent. But the lord in this case shall have a fine." In Morse v. Faulkner (1 Anst. 11. See p. 13), it is said, " In copyholds the heir takes without actual admittance, and may surrender and convey without it, which he could not do......
-
Noel v Bewley
...wrong which she had done him by destroying the contingent remainder; Taylor v. Debarò(! Ca. Ch. 274; and 2 Ca. Ch. 212); Morse v. Faulkner (1 Anst. 11); Seabourne v. Powell (2 Vern. 11); that, in the first of those cases, the title under which the new estate was acquired was in direct oppos......
-
Dean and Stewart v Byrnes and Others
...collected, Mogg v. Baker (3 Mee. and Wels. 195), Langton v. Norton (1 Hare, 549), Whitworth v. Gaugain (1 Phill. 728), Morse v. Faulkner (1 Anst. 11. S.C. 3 Swanst. 429). As no part of the sugars, the subject of the suit, were purchased with the proceeds of any of the Bills of Jones, or of ......