Bristow against Wright and Pugh, Sheriff of Middlesex

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date25 May 1781
Date25 May 1781
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 99 E.R. 421

IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH

Bristow against Wright and Pugh, Sheriff of Middlesex

[665] bristow against wright and pugh, Sheriff of Middlesex. Friday, 25th May, 1781. In an action against the sheriff for taking goods without leaving a year's rent, the declaration needs not state all the particulars of the demise, but if it does, and they are not proved as stated, there shall be a nonsuit. In last Hilary term, on Thursday, the 25th of January, Lee obtained a rule to shew cause, why the verdict which had been found for the plaintiff should not be set aside, and a new trial granted, or a non-suit entered. This was an action on the case, against the defendants as Sheriff of Middlesex, on the statute of 8 Ann. c. 14, 1, [E^" 1] for taking the goods of one Pope in execution, in a house let from year to year by the plaintiff to Pope, without paying or contenting him for a year's rent then due, and of which the defendants, before the removal of the goods, had notice [13P 2]. The declaration stated the demise, as follows : " The said plaintiff, on, &c. demised, to one Benjamin Pope, a certain messuage, &c. to have and to hold unto the said Benjamin, from the Feast of St. Michael, then next following, for and during the term of one year from thence next ensuing, and fully to be eompleat and ended, and so, from year to year, for so long as it should [1] They are so put in the case of Suddlecomb v. Burwash. (a) E. 15Geo. 2, Bott. 104. (b) E. 9 Will. 3, 1 Salk. 478. (c) Salk. loc. cit. [K& 1] That provision only extends to the immediate landlord of whom the tenant in possession holds, and not to a superior or ground landlord. Master Sennet's case, B. E. M. 1 Geo. 2, 2 Str. 787. \$3T 2] It should seem, in such a case as the present, that the Court, on motion, would make a rule on the sheriff to pay the year's rent to the landlord. Darling v. Hill, B. E. E. 9 Geo. 2, Ca. temp. Hardw. 255. 422 BRISTOW V. WRIGHT 2 DOUQL. 666. pleaae the plaintiff, and the said Benjamin, yielding and paying, therefore, yearly and every year during the said term, unto the plaintiff, the yearly rent or sum of, &c. by four even and equal quarterly payments ; to wit, at the Feast of, &c." The principal witness called on the part of the plaintiff, was Pope himself; who proved, that the plaintiff let the house to him, by parol, for a year, and that there was no stipulation about any time or times for the payment of the rent. It was contended, at the trial, (which came on before Lord Mansfield, at the sittings for Middlesex,) that, as the plaintiff had laid a demise with a reservation of rent payable quarterly, he was bound to prove it exactly as laid; and that, having failed in that proof, he ought to be nonsuited. His Lordship over-ruled the objection, being then of opinion, that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Powell v Bradbury and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Common Pleas
    • 22 Enero 1849
    ...of costs. Bule absolute accordingly. (c) Citing Dwidas v. Lord Wvymoufh, Cowp. 665, Price v. Fletcher, Cowp. 727, Bristow v. Wright, 2 Dougl. 665; and see the note [F. 2 p.] 668. (a) Citing Dukes v. Gostling, I N. C. 588 (1 Scott, 570, 1 Hodges, 120); Constable v. Clowbury, Noy, 75 (Palmer,......
  • Silver Stone Development Ltd And Another v Lau Kwong Ching, James And Other
    • Hong Kong
    • High Court (Hong Kong)
    • 1 Junio 2006
    ...the precise words should not be stated unless they are themselves material (see R.S.C., Ord. 18, r. 7(2) and see Bristow v. Wright (1781) 2 Doug. K.B. 665, per Lord Mansfield C.J.). Any condition precedent, the performance or occurrence of which is intended to be contested, should be distin......
  • Yung Chi Kin, Larry V.leung Tin Wai And Others
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)
    • 27 Abril 1993
    ...(2) is taken from the former O. 19, r. 21. This very sensible provision was first enunciated by Lord Mansfield (see Bristow v. Wright (1781) 2 Doug. 665). Where the precise words of a document or conversation are not themselves material they must not be stated in the pleading, but only the ......
  • Attorney General v Louis Clerc
    • United Kingdom
    • Exchequer
    • 6 Febrero 1844
    ...andj which may be rejected. The leading cases upon that subject are Hoar v. Mill (4 M.. & Sehv, 474) and Brintow v. Wright (2 Doug. 665), where the distinction w drawn between matter that is pertinent, which is correctly stated, and that which ia impertinent, and may be struck out. Maiden v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT