Doe dem. Robert Smith, William Cleeve, and Jonathan Southam, and of William Marsh, Josias Henry Stracey, and Montgomerie Stewart against Ann Galloway
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 May 1833 |
| Date | 25 May 1833 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 708
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 2 N. & M. 240; 2 L. J. K. B. 182. Referred to, Dennehy v. Corrigan, 1897, [1902] Ir. R. 63, n.; Cowen v. Truefitt, [1898] 2 Ch. 544; [1899] 2 Ch. 309. Mellor v. Walmesley, [1904] 2 Ch. 533; [1905] 2 Ch. 164.
708 doe v. galloway . ' 5 b. & ad. 43. [43] doe dem. robert smith, william cleeve, and jonathan southam, and of william marsh, josias henry stracey, and montgomerie stewart against ann galloway. Saturday, May 25th, 1833. Under a lease of all that part of the park called B., situate and being in the county of 0., and now in the occupation of S., lying within certain specified abuttals, with- all houses, &c. belonging thereto, and which now are in the occupation of S., a house on a part which is within the abuttals, but not in the occupation of S., will pass. [S. C. 2 N. & M. 240; 2 L. J. K. B. 182. Referred to, Dennehy v. Corrigan, 1897, [1902] Ir. R. 63, n.; Cowen v. Truefitt, [1898] 2 Ch. 554; [1899] 2 Ch. 309. Mellor v. Walmesley, [1904] 2 Ch. 533; [1905] 2 Ch. 164.] Ejectment. At the trial before Gurney B., at the Oxford Summer Assizes 1832, it appeared that the premises claimed consisted of a cottage with the appurtenances, in the possession of the defendant, in Blenheim Park. Marsh, Stracey, and Stewart had extended a moiety of Blenheim Park under a writ of elegit. The moiety was regularly set out upon the inquisition, and delivered to Marsh, Straeey, and Stewart, who leased it to one Richard Smallbones. Smallbones held also the remainder of the park under another title, and he held the moiety leased to him by Marsh, Straeey, and Stewart up to the 22d of June 1824. By deed dated that day, Marsh, Stracey, and Stewart demised to Smith, Cleeve, and Southam, all that part of the park, called or known by the name of Blenheim or Woodstock Park, situate and being in the county of Oxford, and now in the occupation of one Richard Smallbones, in a direct line across the said park from the gate called Old Woodstock Lodge, (following the words of the inquisition,) lying on the north-west side of the said line, (setting out the other abuttals in the words of the inquisition,) together with the farm houses, and other houses, &c. belonging or appertaining to the said premises, and which now are in the occupation of the said R. S., except and always reserved [44] unto the said W. Marsh, J. EL Stracey, and M. Stewart, their executors, administrators, and assigns, all mines and quarries of stone, timber, and other trees whatsoever (with a like exception and reservation of hedges, of a right of hunting, shooting, fishing, and fowling, and of the liberty of keeping a herd of deer in the park, and depasturing three heads of cattle there). Since the execution of this deed, Marsh, Straeey, and Stewart had become bankrupts, and all their property had been regularly assigned before the action was brought; the plaintiff, therefore, relied upon the lease to Smith, Cleeve, and Southam. The premises claimed were within the line and abuttals set out in the inquisition and lease ; but the defendant had occupied them, by the permission of the original owner, up to the time of the inquisition, without paying any rent, no demise having been made to her. Smallbones had also suffered her to occupy them in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Duke of Dorset v Lord Hawarden
..."Lord George Sackville" the person meant was Charles, Duke of Dorset. Doe v. Hkcocks (5 Mees. & Wels. 363), Smith v. Galloway (5 B. & Ad. 43); Blundell v GkdstaM(\\ Sim. 467). [83] Sir Herbert Jenner Fust The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. The deceased died in September, 1841, ......
-
Dublin & Kingstown Rly. Company v Bradford
...caseUNK 3 Rep. 10, a. Ashford v. BowesENR 3 B. & Ad. 457. Roe v. Vernon 5 E. 51. White v. OsborneUNK 4 Jur. 941. Smith v. GallowayENR 5 B. & Ad. 43; S. C., 2 Nev. & Man. 240. Winter v. WinterENR 5 Hare, 306. Barton v. DobbsENR 10 C. B. 281. Doddington's caseUNK 2 Rep. 33, a. Bozoun's caseUN......
-
Webber v Stanley
...yet the mind of the author comprehends them at once, which gives vitam et niodum to the sentence." See also Don d. Smith v. Galloway, 5 B. & Ad. 43, 50. (a)2 The judges present at the argument were, Erie, C. .)., Williams, J., Willes, J., and Keating, J. C. P. xxi.-42* 1322 WEBBER, V. STANL......
-
Morris against Dimes
...same manor; and the Court held this to be a warren in gross, which would not pass by a (a) See eases cited in Doe dem. Smith v. Galloway, 5 B. & Ad. 43; Com. Dig. fait (E, 4). . 1 AD. & E.664. MORKIS V. DIMES 1361 grant of the manor, and all warrens thereto appertaining, or accepted and rep......