Doe dem. Williams and Protheroe v Evans
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 May 1845 |
| Date | 26 May 1845 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 135 E.R. 724
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
S. C. 14 L. J. C. P. 237; 9 Jur. 712. Discussed, Jenkins v. Jones, 1882, 9 Q. B. D. 134. Adpoted, Kennedy v. Lyell, 1885, 15 Q. B. D. 495.
724 DOE V. EVANS 1C. B. 717. [717] doe dem. williams and pkotheroe v. evans. May 26, 1845. [S. C. 14 L. J. C. P. 237 ; 9 Jur. 712. Discussed, Jenkins v. Jones, 1882, 9 Q. B. D. 134. Adopted, Kennedy v. Lyell, 1885, 15 Q. B. D. 495.] A sale by an administrator of a " pretenced right or title " to premises of a term in which the intestate died possessed, but of which the administrator never had possession, is within the prohibition of the statute 32 H. 8, c. 9.-A., possessed of a term, died in 1828. B., who had during A.'s life resided on part of the premises, at A.'s death claimed and took possession of the whole, and retained it till he died in 1829, having by his will devised the premises to C., who remained in undisturbed possession until 1841, when A.'s next of kin took out letters of administration, and sold his right or title in the premises to D:-Held, that the conveyance was void, as well at common law as by the stat. 32 H. 8, c. 9. This was an action of ejectment brought to recover the possession of certain premises situate in the county of Glamorgan. At the trial before Cress well, J., at the last assizes at Swansea, the material facts that were given in evidence were as follows :^- One Evan Richards, being possessed for a long term, under a lease bearing date in 1802, of certain premises, assigned all his interest therein to one Wyndham Lewis, from whom he, in 1807, took an underlease of part of them, for a term not yet expired. Evan Richards had a brother Jenkin, who resided on a portion of the premises, whether as tenant or otherwise, there was no evidence to shew. Evan Richards died in 1828. Jenkin Richards remained in possession, claiming to be entitled to all the premises held by Evan under the lease of 1807, until 1829, when he died having previously devised the premises in question to the present defendant. After the death of Jenkin Richards, the defendant continued in undisturbed possession till 1841, when the lessors of the plaintiff, after making ineffectual attempts to turn him out, discovered the next of kin of Evan (Thomas Richards), and induced him to take out letters of administration to the effects of Evan, and to assign his supposed interest in the premises, to Protheroe (one of the lessors of the plaintiff), for 101. There was no evidence that Thomas Richards, the administrator, ever was in possession of, or made any claim to, the premises. [718] On the part of the defendant, if was objected that the conveyance by Thomas Richards to Protheroe, was void, as being contrary to the statute 32 H. 8, c. 9. A verdict was taken for the lessors of the plaintiff, subject to leave reserved to the defendant to move to enter a verdict for him, if the court should be of opinion that the objection was well founded. Sir T. Wilde, Serjt., in Easter term, accordingly obtained a rule nisi. Channel!, Serjt. (with whom was E. V. Williams), now shewed cause. This is not the case of one who is in by disseisin of the rightful owner, but it is to be looked at as the case of a permissive occupation by Jenkin Richards in his brother's life-time, continued since his death for a period short of twenty years, without any acknowledgment of title in his administrator. The case is, therefore, not within the statute 32 Hen. 8, c. 9. The 2nd section (a) prohibits in general terms the buying of pretenced (a) Which enacts, " that no person nor persons, of what estate, degree, or condition soever he or they be, shall from henceforth bargain, buy, or sell, or by any ways or means obtain, get, or have any pretenced rights or titles, or take, promise, grant, or covenant to have any right or title of any person or persons in or to any manors, lands, tenements, or hereditaments (except such person or persons which shall so bargain, sell, give, grant, covenant, or promise the same, their ancestors or they by whom he or they claim the same, have been in possession of the same, or of the reversion or remainder thereof, or taken the rents or profits thereof, by the space of one whole year next before the said bargain, covenant, grant, or promise made), upon pain that he that shall make any such bargain, sale, promise, covenant, or grant, to [sic] forfeit the whole value of the lands, tenements, or hereditaments so bargained, sold, promised, covenanted, or granted contrary to the form of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robb and Reid v The Right Rev Bishop Dorrian
...Tothill, 34. Partridge v. Strange Plowd. 88. Underwood v. Lord Courtown 2 Sch. & Lef. 65. Doe d. Williams and Protheroe v. EvansENR 1 C. B. 717. Dickson v. BurrellELR L. R. 1 Eq. 337. Doe d. Williams v. ProtheoreENR 1 C. B. 717. Nelson v. SmallUNK 13 Ir. C. L. R. 558. Prosser v. EdwardsENR ......
-
The Irish Land Commission v Davies
...PooleyENR 6 M. & W. 664. Devlin v. KellyDLTR 20 Ir. L. T. R. 77. Partridge v. Strange 1 Plowd. 88. Doe d. Williams & Protheroe v. EvansENR 1 C. B. 717. Nelson v. SmallUNK 13 Ir. C. L. R. 558. Robb & Reid v. DorrianUNK Ir. R. 11 C. L. 292, at p. 305. In Yem v. EdwardsENR 1 De G. & J. 598. In......
-
The Estate of The Rev. Edmond John Butler, Owner and Petitioner
...1 Russ. 64. AnonymousENR 2 Atk. 15. Groom v. BlakeIR 6 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 400; S. C., in error, 8 Ir. Com. Rep. 428. Doe v. EvansENR 1 C. B. 717. Doe v. Powell 3 N. & M. 616. Underwood v. Courtown 2 S. & L. 65. Sturgis v. MorseENRENR 24 Beav. 541; S. C., on appeal, 3 De G. & J. 1. Cook v. Fi......