Bristow against Wright and Pugh, Sheriff of Middlesex
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 May 1781 |
| Date | 25 May 1781 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 99 E.R. 421
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
[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...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Silver Stone Development Ltd And Another v Lau Kwong Ching, James And Other
...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
...(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
...of it would have been good, because the 30th of August might have been deemed to be material: 12 M. &-W.854. STEWARD 77. DUNNBrintow 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......
-
Williams and Wife v Hayes
...in tfcis case is not misstated. It is a mere insertion, from, perhaps, over caution on the 2tO THE KING V. TARLETON 9 PRICEBristoiv v. I fright (2 Doug. 665), where the Court reluctantly considered themselves bound to hold, that a declaration-unnecessarily alleging in an action against a Pl......