Doe d Digby v Steel
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1811 |
| Date | 01 January 1811 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1324
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
doe d digby ?* steel. (In ejectment by an executor, it is sufficient pnma facie evidence that the testator had a chattel interest in the premises, to put in the defendant's answer to a bill in equity, stating that " he believed the testator was possessed of the lease- 3 CAMi. 118. DIGBY V. STEEL 1325 hold premiseb m the bill mentioned " It, after the expiration of a notice to quit, the landlord gives the tenant a fresh notice that unless he quit in 14 dayy he will be required to pay double value , the second notice is no waiver of the first.) This was au ejectment brought upon the demise of Wnothesley Digby, Esq as the executor of the last will and testament of the late dame Elizabeth Mackworth [116] who was the executrix of the last will and testament of her late husband Sir Herbert Mackworth, Baronet, deceased, to recover the possession of a house in Henrietta-street, Manchester-square In support of the title of the lessor of the plaintiff, there was put in the defendant'*: answer to a bill in equity, filed against him for a discovery In this he states, " that he believes that Sir Herbert Mackworth was possessed of the leasehold premises in the bill mentioned " Topping, for the defendant, objected, that in the declaration there was only one demise, namely, by Mr Digby, as executor of Lady Mackworth, who was executrix of her husband,_and that Mr Digby was not proved, or even pretended to be the heir at law of Sir Herbert Mackworth, or devisee under any will of Sir Herbert's duly executed so as to pass a real estate They were therefore bound on the other side to go further, and shew that Sir Herbert's was a chattel interest, and not a freehold Lord Ellenborough said, that as against the defendant who had admitted that he believed Sir Herbert to have been in his lifetime possessed of the leasehold premises in question, he would not require the plaintiff to go further , that the term possessed, as contradistinguished from the word seized, wan properly applied to chattel interests ; and that although there were freehold leases, still in common parlance the term leasehold imported a chattel interest [117] The plaintiff then put in probates of the wills of Sir Herbert and Lady Mackworth, and also proved the service upon the defendant, upon the 18th December 1810, of a notice of that date to quit the premises on 24th June following, " provided the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen, at the prosecution of William Reddy, Superintendent, Dublin Metropolitan Police, Appellant; The Right Honourable Timothy Daniel Sullivan, Respondent
...& Ald. 145. The Queen v. Unkles Ir. R. S. C. L. 50. Reg. v. HolbrookELR4 Q. B. D. 46. Emmens v. PottleELR 16 Q. B. D. 354. Doe v. SteelENR 3 Camp. 115. Rex. v. Falkiner Russ. & Ryan, 481. The King v. Lambe 2 Leach's Crown Cases, 554. Lord Hale 2 Hale, P. C. 290. Mr. Graves to Russell on Cri......
-
Raleigh and Others, Assignees of Lawrence Rostrow, John Rostrow, and James Rostrow, Bankrupts v Atkinson
...2 Y. &.J. 116; Woodward v. Lambert, 3 Esp. 286; Singleton v. Barrett, 2 C. & J. 368; Gibson \. Coyqon, 2 Camp. 188 ; Doe d. Digbyv. 8ted, 3 Camp 115; (.keen-way v. Hurdis, 4 Camp. 42 ; Pasmwe v. Bottsfield, 1 Stark. N. P. 296 ; Aldermii v. (Hay, id. 405; Harvey v, Kay, 9 B. & C. 356; Astano......
- Lustre Hosiery Ltd v York
-
Ward v McDowall
... ... the following passage from Hill and Redman's Law of Landlord and Tenant 17th edn Vol 1, para 402 for which the authors cite as authority Doe d Digby v. Steel (1811) 3 Campbell 115, 117 ; Mills v. Goff (1845) 14 M W 72, 75 and the dictum of Smith L.J. in Sidebotham v. Holland [1895] 1 Q.B ... ...