Doe on the demise of Fenwick and Others against Reed
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 November 1821 |
| Date | 09 November 1821 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 1177
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Referred to, Dalton v. Angus, 1881, 6 App. Cas. 782.
doe ON the demise OF FENWICK AND others against reed. Saturday, November 9th, 1821. Where a defendant's ancestor came into possession of certain lands in 1752, as a creditor under a judgment obtained against the then owner of the land, and defendant's family had continued in possession ever since: Held, that the original possession having been taken, not under any conveyance, the length of possession was only primS, facie evidence, from which a jury might infer a subsequent conveyance by the original owner, or some of his descendants, but that it might be rebutted, and that the jury must not presume such conveyance from length of possession, unless they were satisfied that it had actually been executed. [Referred to, Dalton v. Angus, 1881, 6 App. Gas. 782]. Ejectment for several messuages and land in the parishes of Simonburn, Wark, &c. in the county of Northumberland. In the year 1747, Edward Charlton, [233] Esquire, under whom the plaintiffs claimed, being indebted to John Rooke, to the amount of 8501., for which debts Rooke had obtained judgment, it was agreed between them, 1178 DOE f. REED 5B&AIJ .234. that Kooke should be put into the possession of the rents and profits of the estates in question, until the debts should be satisfied thereout, which agreement was carried into effect, and Kooke entered into, and remained in possession until 1752. Edward Charlton, being at that time indebted also to John Reed, under whom the defendant claimed, Reed was desirous of getting into the possession of the estates held by Rooke, and by a certain indenture of assignment between Rooke and Reed, the former assigned over all the debt then remaining due, and his right of possession to the estates in question, upon the payment to him of the sum of 5751. Under this agreement, Reed entered into possession, and he and his family have continued so ever since. In the year 1801, a suit in Chancery was instituted by the Charlton family, to recover possession of the estates, upon which, in 1821, the Vice-Chancellor directed the present action to be brought, prohibiting the defendant from setting up as a defence, that the debts due or assigned to John Reed, deceased, were paid 20 years ago, or that the same were still unpaid. At the trial, it was proved, in addition to the before-mentioned...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hanna v Pollock
...v. ByrneUNK Ir. R. 11 C. L. 355. Daniell v. Anderson 31 L. J. Ch. (N. S.) 610. Deeble v. LinehanUNK 12 Ir. C. L. R. 1. Doe v. ReedENR 5 B. & Ald. 232. Dynevor v. TennantELR 13 App. Cas. 279, at p. 292. Dynevor v. TennantELR 13 App. Cas. 279. Dynevor v. TennantELR 33 Ch. D. 420, 426. Fahey v......
-
Little and Another, in Error, v Wingfield and Others
...Cowp. 102. Lopez v. Andrew 3 M. & Ry. 329, n. Roe v. IrelandENR 10 East, 284. The Mayor of Hull v. Horner Cowp. 108. Fenwick v. ReadENR 5 B. & A. 232. Blewitt v. Tregonning 3 A. & E. 554. Gray v. BondUNK 2 B. & B. 667. Roe v. IrelandENR 11 East, 280. Campbell v. WilsonENR 3 East, 294. Livet......
-
Beauman v Kinsella
...Read v. BrookmanENR 3 T. R. 151. Bealey v. ShawENR 6 East, 208, 215. Pickering v. Lord Stamford 2Ves. jun. 280, 581. Fenwick v. ReadENR 5 B. & Ald. 232. Eldridge v. Knott Cowp. 214, 215. Keymer v. Summers Bull., N. P., 74 b. Keene v. DeardonENR 8 East, 248, 266. Gray v. BondENR 2 Br. & B. 6......
-
Dewhirst v Wrigley
...of the Defendants : the origin of the possession being explained, the doctrine of presumption is not applicable. In Due v. Reed, 5 Barnewall & Alderson, 232, Lord Tenterden said, that in cases where the original possession could be accounted for, grants were not to be presumed, and that iu ......