Doe dem. J. A. Wigan against Jones
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1830 |
| Date | 01 January 1830 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 521
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 5 Man. & Ey. 563; 8 L. J. K. B. O. S. 214. Discussed, Skeeles v. Shearly, 1837, 3 My. & Cr. 116.
[459] doe dem. J. A. wigan against jones. 1830. In 1822 an estate was conveyed to such uses as A. B. should by deed, &c. appoint, and in the mean time to the use of himself for life, &c. In 1826 a judgment was obtained against him, and in 1827 he mortgaged this estate, and appointed the use to C. D. for 500 years. After the execution of this deed, the judgment creditor issued an elegit: Held, that his lien upon the land was defeated by the execution of the power. [S. C. 5 Man. & Ey. 563; 8 L. J. K. B. O. S. 214. Discussed, SJceeles v. Shearly, 1837, 3 My. & Cr. 116.] Ejectment for lands in the parish of Mayfield, in the county of Sussex. The demise was laid on the 12th day of April 1828. At the trial before Garrow B., at the Summer Assizes for Sussex, 1828, a nonsuit was directed by the learned Judge, with liberty to the plaintiff to move to set it aside and enter a verdict for the plaintiff; and if the Court should order a case or special verdict, to be turned into one accordingly. On motion to this Court, they ordered the facts to be stated in a case, and the case to be turned into a special verdict, should either of the parties deem it expedient. The case was as follows :- In Michaelmas term 1822 a judgment was entered up against Thomas Baker, at the suit of the defendant Thomas Jones, for the sum of 60001.; and on the 13th of December 1827 the said T. Jones sued out a writ of elegit on the said judgment, directed to the Sheriff of the county of Sussex, and on an inquisition duly taken on the said writ and finding the seisin of the said T. Baker, the sheriff delivered the lands in question to the defendant, as his free tenement, according to the statute in that behalf, until he should thereof have fully levied the debt and damages in the said writ mentioned. The seisin and title of T. Baker, the debtor, commenced with and under indentures dated the 29th and 30th days of November 1826, and by these indentures the lands K. B. xxxviii.-17* 522 DOB V. JONES 10 B. & C. 460. in question, and taken in execution under the said writ of elegit, were conveyed to the following uses; viz. to such use and uses, and to and for such estate and [460] estates, interest and interests, ends, intents, and purposes, and upon such trusts, and charged and chargeable in such manner, and subject to, with, and under such powers, provisoes, conditions, limitations, declarations, and agreements as the said T. Baker at any time or times, and from time to time thereafter, by any deed or deeds, instrument or instruments in writing, with or without power of revocation and new appointment, to be sealed and delivered by him, the said T. Baker, in the presence of, and to be attested by, two or more credible witnesses, should direct, limit, or appoint; and in default of, and until such direction, limitation, or appointment, or in case any such should be made, then subject thereto; and when and as the estate or estates, interest or interests thereby directed, limited, appointed, or created, should respectively end and determine, and in the mean time subject thereto; and as to such part or parts of the same several hereditaments and premises, and all such estate and interest therein of which no such direction, limitation, or appointment should be effectually made as aforesaid; to the use of the said T. Baker and his assigns, for and during the term of his natural life, without impeachment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitworth v Gaugain
...99), Casberd v. Attorney-General (Daniel, 238; S. C. 6 Price, 411), The King v. Humphrey (M'Cl. & You. 173), Doe dem. Wigan v. Jones (10 B. & C. 459), Lodge v. Lyseley (4 Sim. 70), Giles v. Orover (9 Bing. 128), Skeeles v. Shearley (3 My. & Cr. 112), Newlands v. Pffl/M-[421]-fer (4 My. & Cr......
-
Bowyer v Blair
...JeyesENR 1 B. & Ad. 593. Ridout v. PainENR 3 Atk. 493. Doe v. Scott 3 M. & Sel. 300. Peacock v. MonkENR 2 Ves. Sen. 190. Doe v. JonesENR 10 B. & C. 459. WILL CONSTRUCTION OF FEE-SIMPLE ESTATE ESTATE FOR LIFE POWERS. 149 QUEEN'S BENCH. Monday, November 12th. WILL-CONSTRUCTION OF-FEE-SIMPLE E......
-
Whitmarsh v Robertson
...and the purchaser from the husband can have no better title than the husband had. In Bay v. Pung (5 Barn. & Aid. 561), Doe v. Jones (10 B. & C. 459), Lawsoris case in Tunstall v. Trappes (3 Sim. 300), and Skeeles v. Shecwly (8 Sim. 153; 3 Myl. & Or. 112), it was held that dower and the lien......
-
The Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Poole v Whitt
...of his lessor (0} 335; Rep. : (a 4 B. & Aid. 684. See Harris v. Booker, 4 Bing. 97 ; also Harris v. I'uijh, id. Doe d. Wifffin v. Jones, 10 B. & C. 459 ; also 3 Simons's Rep. 287 ; 6 Simons's 17 ; Dund&s v. Dutenn, 1 Ves. sen. 98 ; In re Deanleti, 3 Myl. & K. 508. 5 Ad. &:E. 367 ; and see C......