Den, Lessee of Taylor, against the Earl of Abingdon
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 November 1780 |
| Date | 21 November 1780 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 99 E.R. 302
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
den, Lessee of Taylor, against the earl of abingdon. Tuesday, 21st Nov. 1780. Upon an elegit the sheriff is not bound to deliver a moiety of each particular tenement and farm, but only certain tenements, &c. making in value a moiety of the whole. The lessor of the plaintiff having recovered a judgment against the defendant, sued out an elegit of his lands in the county of Berks, upon which an inquisition was taken, and returned by the sheriff; and this ejectment was brought to obtain possession under the elegit. The cause came on for trial before Perryn, Baron, at the Summer Assizes for Berkshire, on Tuesday, the 25th of July, 1780, and the inquisition being produced, it appeared, that it mentioned by name all the different farms and tenements of the defendant's estate in the county consisted, with their value, the number of acres in each, be the same more or less, the tenants' names, yearly value besides reprizes, and the clear yearly amount of the whole; and then, repeating the names of a certain number of them, their number of acres more or less, and yearly amount, it found that those particular farms and tenements were a true and equal moiety of all the said lands and premises of the defendant in the county, " which moiety of the said lands and premises, I, the said sheriff, on the day of taking thfs inquisition, have caused to be delivered to the lessor of the plaintiff, by the price and extent aforesaid, &c." Upon the production of this inquisition, Cowper, on [474] the part of the defendant, objected, that the elegit had not been duly executed, and that the inquisi- (a) 18 Geo. 2, c. 52, 12. JDODOL.475. DEN V. LORD ABINGDON 303 tion was void on the face of it, for that a moiety of each farm oughfc to have been extended and delivered to the lessor of the plaintiff, and not a certain number of distinct farms, amounting, in value, to a moiety of the whole. This objection being stated, and a passage in Gilbert's Evidence (a), taken from Ventris (b)1, cited in support of it, the Judge, and counsel on both sides, agreed that a case should be saved, setting forth the inquisition, in order to take the opinion of the Court; subject to which opinion a verdict was found for the plaintiff. Two days afterwards, a similar cause, between the same parties, came on, before Buller, Justice, at Oxford, and a case was also saved in that cause, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hele v Lord Bexley
...not a moiety of each particular tenement but only certain tenements, making in value a moiety of the whole ; Den v. Earl of Abingdon (2 Doug. 473). It is essential, therefore, that those who dispute Mr. Donovan's claim should shew that some part of the lands and hereditaments, conveyed to h......
-
Kirkwood v Lloyd
...KIRKWOOD and LLOYD. Fenny v. DuranENR 1 B. & Ald. 40. Denn v. The Earl of AbingdonENR 2 Doug. 473. Earl of Stamford v. NedhamENR 1 Lev. 160. Hanger v. Fry Cro Eliz. 310. Hunger v. Frey F. Moor. 341. White v. White 3 Ir. Law Rep. 118, n. Martin v. M'Causland 3 Ir. Law Rep. 113. Farrell v. Gl......
-
Kirkwood v Lloyd
...Ryan v. CambieUNK 2 Ir. Eq. Rep. 328. Wright v. MaddockUNK 10 Jur. 366. Masters v. DurrantENR 1 B. & Ald. 40. Taylor v. Lord AbingdonENR 2 Doug. 473. Martin v. M'Causland 3 Ir. Law Rep. 113. White v. White Ibid, 118, note. Farren v. Ottiwell 2 Ir. Law Rep. 110. Farrell v. Glesson 7 Ir. Law ......
-
Umphelby v McLean and Another
...remedy which is used to obtain a compensation for a tortious act done. In this case, the action is (a)1 Str. 695. (1) 1 Sidf. 239. (a)2 Doug. 473. 1B.&ALD. 44. CORK V. SAUNDBRS 17 brought, not in consequence of an act [44] done, but of the defendants omitting to do that which they ought to ......