Coppledick v Tansey
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1682 |
| Date | 01 January 1682 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 123 E.R. 1079
THE COMMON PLEAS
coppledick versus tansey. Quare impedit. Line. Francis Coppledick plaintiff in a quare impedit against Samuel Tansey clerk, Sir Philip Tirivint Baronet, and Bichard Bishop of Lincoln, quod permittant ipsum presentare ad Ecclesiam de Ulceby; and count that one Francis Coppledick was seised of the advowson in fee, and that it was holden in socage; and that the said Francis so being seised devised it in tail, and intitle himself as heir in tail. Tansey plead that he is parson imparsonee of the presentment of the said Sir Philip, and demand oyer of the writ, and plead that at the day of the writ purchased there was no such Eichard Bishop of Lincoln in rerum natura, and demands judgment of the writ: Sir Philip plead that there is no such church called TJlceby in the county of Lincoln, and demanded judgment of the writ. The plaintiff demur upon the plea of the incumbent, aud as to the [32] plea of Sir Philip, he reply, that there is such a church called Ulceby in the county of Lincoln; and this plea being tried at Lincoln, before Baron Bromley, it was found for the defendant : for there was an union of the church of Fordington to Ulceby, and it was called Ulceby cum Fordington: and it was said that institutions and presentments were to Ulceby; and Ulceby was the greater, and Fordington was the lesser church, and united, and therein bad loat its name. It waa agreed, that it being known by the one or by the other name, had been sufficient to have found for the plaintiff. Serjeant Harris moved in arrest of judgment, that it being tried per venire facias de vicineto de Ulceby, it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrison Robinson and Jane Mary his Wife v The Marquis of Bristol and Others
...authority in favour oi the plaintiffs. There is since the union but one incumbency, viz. of the new church: In CoppledicJc v. Tansey (Hutton, 31), the plaintiff brought a quare impedit against the incumbent, the patron, and the ordinary, quod permittant ipsum presentare ad ecclesiam de Ulce......
-
Nutton and Crow
...authorities to prove the executor; cannot sue before probate, [111] though he may be sued. 9 Co. 38, 39. Co. Lit. 292. Plowd. 280 b. Hutt. 31. 5 Co. 28. But if he shews it duly proved at any time before he declares, it is sufficient. Roll. Rep. 917. But if it appears otherwise, though not p......
-
Barret's Case
...E.R. 396 King's Bench Division Cuppledick and Sir Philip Terwhit 327. cuppledick versus sir philip terwhit. Tr. 16 Jac. Eot. 3210. Q. Imped. Hut. 31. Mestne ca. Co. L. 125. b. Cuppledick brought a quare imped, against Sir Philip Terwhit & alios qu. permittat ipsum presentare ad ecelesiam de......
-
Thompson v Reynolds and Another
...testamentary " ; and it is added, " the reason why an executor cannot go on before probate is, for the enforcing of probates, as is said in Hutton 31, because, upon probate, there are inventories exhibited, and other acts done by the executor, which are lor the benefit of the creditors of t......
-
Butterwick Estate Act 1856
...Brown 334. Daniel, William' Richard Smithson - 434 9 1 Dent, Eev. William, Thomas Horner 773,794 1 8 11 Executors of. ,, i, " John Hutton 31 - 1 6 * '? " Thomas Reynard 800 10 2 Fawcett, Richard Thomas Kitson and others. 8 - , 6 Fawcett John Smith 70. 336 19 & 20 VICTORIA, Cap.S. ButterwicM......