Doe on The Demise of Grubb against J. Grubb
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 May 1826 |
| Date | 08 May 1826 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 108 E.R. 170
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
discussed, Howard v. Howard, 1892, 32 L. R. Ir. 462.
457] doe on the demise of grubb against J. grubb. Monday, May 8th, 1826. Where, in ejectment, A. was admitted to defend alone, as landlord, and died before the termination of the action, having devised all his real estates to B., and the Statute of Limitations prevented the lessor of the plaintiff from bringing a fresh ejectment, the Court gave him leave to sign judgment against the casual ejector in the old suit, and issue execution thereon, unless B. would appear and defend the action as landlord. [Discussed, Howard v. Howard, 1892, 32 L. E. Ir. 462.] A rule had been obtained calling upon E. Grubb, the devisee of J. Grubb, the defendant in this action, which was an ejectment for lands in the parish of Horsenden, in the county of Buckingham, to shew cause why the lessor of the plaintiff should not sign judgment against the casual ejector, and issue execution thereon, unless the said devisee or the tenant in possession would appear and defend the action. It appeared by the affidavits that the lands in question descended to the lessor of the plaintiff in 1812, from his father, who had not been in possession since 1805, In 1814, he brought ejectment to recover possession, when E. Grubb appeared and was admitted to defend as landlord. Before the suit was ended, viz. in 1817, E. Grubb died intestate, leaving J. Grubb (then an infant) his heir at law. Negotiations were then entered into, but ultimately failed; and in 1820, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howard v Howard
...Peter v.Peter 26 Ch. Div. 181. Michaels v. The Empire Palace Company(Limited)ELR W. N. (1892), P. 38; 8 Times Rep. 378. Grubb v. GrubbENR 5 B. & C. 457. Bampton v. BirchallENR 5 Beav. 67. Irving v. PearsonUNK 18 L. T. (N. S.) 283. Williams v. Llanelly Railway co.ELR L. R. 10 Eq. 401. Practi......
-
Howard v Howard
...No. 318.] HOWARD and HOWARD Howard v. HowardUNK 30 L. R. Ir. 340. Hovenden v. Marshall 2 Ir. Jur. (N. S.) 378. Doe d. Grubb v. GrubbENR 5 B. & C. 457. Harding v. LyonsUNK 14 L. R. Ir. p. 305. Morton v. GalweyUNK Ir. R. 9 C. L. 173. Gledhill v. Hunter 14 Ch. Div. 495. Ferrand v. Mayor of Bra......