Doe, Lessee of Lawson, and Others v Law, Widow
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 February 1785 |
| Date | 09 February 1785 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 99 E.R. 866
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
866 DOE V. LAW 4DOUQL. 261. dob, Lessee of Lawaon, and others v. law, Widow (a). Wednesday, 9th February, 1785. The Court will stay proceedings in a second ejectment brought on the aama title till the costs of the former ejectment be paid, though the lessors of the plaintiff are different. The title of this case was, " Doe on the several demises of Francis Lawson, Esquire, Ralph) Earl Verney, Robert Chatnbers, and Anthony Patrickson Deceased, James Knox, Wttliam Coningesby Dairies, and Edward Langley, Executws of Robert Chambers Deceased, Robert Chambers, Heir-at-Law of the said Robert Chambers Deceased, Anne Prince, Susannah Molynaux, and Mary Chadwick, v. Sarah Law, Widow." On Friday, the 28th of January, Lee had obtained a [251] rule to show cause why the proceedings should not be staid until the lessors of the plaintiff should pay to the defendant her costs (to be taxed by the Master) occasioned by a former ejectment in this Court, wherein one Charles Chadwick was the lessor of the plaintiff, and the present defendant was defendant, and why they or their attorney should not pay her also the costs of this application. The affidavits on which the rule was moved for were made by the defendant's attorney and three other persons. They swore that the former ejectment and this were both brought for the recovery of real estates formerly belonging to Sir Andrew Chadwick, and both related to the title to the same premises ; that they believed the present lessors, or some of them, claimed title under Charles Chadwick, the former lessor-one of them, viz. Lawson, being clerk of the peace for the county of Surry, and Charles Chadwick having been formerly discharged under an Insolvent Act; that the former cause was tried by a special jury at the sittings in Hilary term, 13 Geo. 3, when a verdict was found for the defendant; and that the costs were afterwards taxed, but had not been paid. Law now showed cause upon two affidavits. By the first, Prince, Molynaux, and Chadwick, three of the lessors of the plaintiff, swore, that they understood and believed that they were entitled to the premises as heirs-at-law to Sir Andrew Chadwick, being daughters of John, the son of William, who was brother to Sir Andrew ; and that they understood and believed that the defendant was a more distant relation, claiming only to be the daughter of Kobert...
To continue reading
Request your trial