Bulpit v Clarke
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 June 1804 |
| Date | 07 June 1804 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 127 E.R. 379
Common Pleas Division
1 BOB. & Pvt. (N. R.) 57. BULPIT V. CLARKE 379 BULPIT V. CLARKE. J0110 7th, 1804. The 11 Geo. 2, c. 19, respecting avowries in replevin, does not extend to an avowry for a rent-charge (a).The Defendant in replevin having made cognizance for rent-service as bailiff of A. B. and C. who were lawfully possessed of a certain manor of which the locus in quo was parcel, and holden at a certain rent, the Plaintiff replied that A. B. and C. were not seised in their demesne as of fee of the manor. Held bad on demurrer. Replevin. The Defendant first pleaded non cepit ; he then made cognizance as bailiff of R. W., W. F. B., and T. C., and alleged that the place in which, &c. was parcel of a certain tenement called Barkham, and that the Plaintiff enjoyed the said tenement called Barkham under a grant thereof theretofore made, at a certain yearly rent-charge to wit, the yearly rent-charge of 31. payable at Michaelmas in every year, from Michaelmas 1801 to Michaelmas 1802, and from thence until and at the said time when, &c. ; and because 31. of the rent-charge aforesaid, for one year ending at Michaelmas 1802, were in arrear, he acknowledged the taking as and for a distress for the said rent-charge so in arrear. Etc also made cognizance as bailiff of the same persons, alleging that the place in which, &c. was parcel of a certain tenement called Barkham, holden of the manor of Bentworth, at and under a certain yearly rent, to wit, the yearly rent of 31. payable at Michaelmas in every year, of which said manor the said R. W., W. F. B., and T. C., before and at the time at which the rent thereinafter mentioned to he distrained for became due, were lawfully possessed, and that the Plaintiff held the said tenement from Michaelmas 1801 to Michaelmas 1802, and from thence until and at the said time, when, &c. and because 31. for one year's [57] rent were in arrear, acknowledged the taking for a distress. The Plaintiff, after taking issue on non cepit, demurred generally to the first cognizance. As to the second cognizance, he first traversed that the place in which, &c. was parcel of the supposed tenement called Barkham, holden of the manor of Bentworth, at the supposed rent of 31. ; then idly, he pleaded in bar that the said R. W., W. F. 13., and T. C. were not, at the said time at which the supposed rent mentioned to be distrained for became due, and from thence until the said time when, &c. seised in their demesne, as of fee of the said manor of Bentworth ; then idly, he traversed that the supposed tenement was holden of the said R. W., W. F. B., and T. C. as of their manor of Bentworth, at the supposed rent of 31. ; and then fourthly he pleaded that the said R. W., W. F, B., and T. C. were not, nor was nor were any other person or persons whose estate they at the said time when, &c. had of and in the said manor, at any time within 50 years next before the said time, when, &c. seised of the said supposed...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Brady v Fitzgerald
...BRADY and FITZGERALD. Stevelly v. MurphyUNK 2 Ir. Eq. Rep. 448. Bradbury v. Wright Doug. 602. Bulpit v. ClarkeENR 1 Bos. & Pul. N. R. 56. Cremen v. JohnsonUNK 9 Ir. Eq. Rep. 143. Cupit v. JacksonENR 13 Price, 721. Mankly v. HawkinsUNK 1 Dr. & Wal. 363. Adair v. New River Company 11 Ves. 429......