Brewster against Kidgill
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1796 |
| Date | 01 January 1796 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 88 E.R. 1239
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
Dictum questioned, Milnes v. Branch, 1816, 5 M. & S. 415, 417. Explained and distinguished, Louch v. Peters, 1834, 1 My. & K. 497; Baily v. De Crespigny, 1869, L. R. 4 Q. B. 186. Referred to, Newy v. Sharpe, 1878, 8 Ch. D. 46; Newington Local Board v. Cottingham Local Board, 1879, 12 Ch. D. 731. Discussed and applied, Austerberry v. Oldham Corporation, 1885, 29 Ch. D. 784.
12 MOD. 167. HILARY TERM, 9 WILL. 3. IN B. R. 1239 case 295. brewster against kidgill. [Didu/n questioned, Milnes v. Branch, 1816, 5 M. & S. 415, 417. Explained and distinguished, Loiuh v. Peters, 1834, 1 My. & K. 497 ; Baily v. De Crespigny, 1869, L. R. 4 Q. B. 186. Eeferred to, Newby v. Sharps, 1878, 8 Ch. D. 46; Newintjton Local Board v. Cottingtiam Local Board, 1879, 12 Ch. D. 731. Discussed and applied, Austerben-y v. Oldham Corporation, 1885, 29 Ch. D. 784.] A covenant in 1649, that A. his heirs and assigns shall be paid a rent-charge, free from all taxes, extends to all future Parliamentary taxes.-S. C. Salk. 198, 615. S. C. 5 Mod. 368. S. C. Comb. 424, 466. S. C. Garth. 438. S. C. 3 Salk. 340. S. C. Holt, 175, 609. Case, upon a wager concerning a rent-charge of forty pounds a year, whereof the plaintiff, as son and heir of Ellen Brewster, is seised in fee by virtue of a grant to her and her heirs, issuing out of a manor, of which Kidgel is terretenant; that the defendant affirmed, it was lawful for him to deduct four shillings in the pound for Parliamentary taxes, which the plaintiff denied, &c. And upon issue joined, a special verdict was found, that on the twenty-sixth of November 1649, Robert Langford was seised in fee of the manor of B. and that in consideration of eight hundred pounds paid by Ellen Brewster, he granted to her and her heirs a rent-charge in fee of forty pounds per annum, with a covenant iu the deed for further assurance; and on the back of the deed this indorsement was, " Memorandum, It is the true intent and meaning of these presents, that the grantee and her heirs shall for ever hereafter be paid the said rent-charge, without any deduction or abatement of taxes, charge, or payment out of, for or concerning the said rent, or the said manor or lands charged herewith." And afterwards in 1652, for further assurance, granted and confirmed the rent aforesaid to Ellen Brewster, and her heirs, with a nomine pmnce; and Robert Longford covenants, that at the sealing thereof he was seised in fee, and that it was free from all incumbranees, and that he had power to charge the same; and that the said yearly rent of forty pounds per annum, freed from all taxes, shall be for ever hereafter duly paid [167] at the time and place for the payment thereof, &c. The question was, whether the grantor of the rent, and his heirs, shall be obliged to pay the said rent, without any deduction for, or by reason of any tax imposed by Parliament futurely on the said rent? Holt, Chief Justice, delivered the opinion of the Court, that the covenant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Irish Insurance Commissioners, Appellants; Hamilton Respondent
... ... are generally spoken of, they mean Parliamentary taxes given to the Crown: Holt, C.J., Brewster v. Kidgill (1); Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, vol. iii, p. 2011. [They also referred to the ... ...
-
Gaw v Córas Iompair Éireann
...(5) 5 Mau. & Sel. 411. (6) 1 B. & C. 694. (7) Prec. in Ch. 39. (1) Prec. in Ch. 39. (2) 1 Raym. 317, (reported asBrewster v. Kidgel in 12 Mod. 166). (1) 1 Raym. 317; 12 Mod. (1) 3 Wils. 25. (2) 5 Mau. & Sel. 411. (1) Prec. in Ch. 39. (2) 29 Ch. D. 750. (3) 2 Ph. 774. (1) 9 L. R. I. 85. (2) ......