Doe on the demise of the Earl of Egremont against Pulman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 June 1842 |
| Date | 25 June 1842 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 114 E.R. 645
IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 11 L. J. Q. B. 319; 6 Jur. 1122.
[622} DOE ON THE DEMISE OF THE EARL OF EOREMONT against PULMAN. Saturday, June 25th, 1842. In ejectment, to prove that the land in question was part of the estate of the lessor's ancestor, a counterpart of a lease, purporting to demise that land, was produced from the ancestor's muniment room: it was dated in the ancestor's lifetime, and appeared to be executed by the person named as lessee, but by no one else. The lease itself was not produced, nor any excuse (a) See note (a), p. 611, ante. 646 DOE V. PULMAN 3 Q. B. Z3. shewn for the nonproduction. No privity appeared between the lessee and the defendant in the ejectment. Held, that the counterpart was admissible. [S. C. 11 L. J. Q. B. 319; 6 Jur. 1122.] Ejectment for lands in Somersetshire. The action was tried before Rolfe B., at the Somersetshire Spring Assizes, 1840. The lessor of the plaintiff, George, Earl of Egreraont, claimed under the will of the late Charles, Earl of Egremont, who died in 1763, leaving the will in question, dated 31st July 1761. By the will, Earl Charles devised lands, described therein as his manors, lands, &c., late the estate of his father Sir William Wyndham, to his second son for life, with remainder over, &c., and with certain powers of leasing. The defendant held under a lease which, according to the case of the lessor of the plaintiff, was not in conformity with the powers. Sir William Wyndham died in 1741. In order to shew that the land in question belonged to Earl Charles, and had been part of the estate of Sir William Wyndham, it was proved that the land had been held by lease from parties who, if the lands had been comprized in the above devise, would have been the parties entitled to let it; but no evidence was given of any actual holding by, or under, Sir William Wyndham, except a deed found in the muniment room containing the documents relating to the property which had belonged to Sir W. Wyndham, and which deed appeared to be a counterpart of a lease, dated in the lifetime of Sir W. Wyndham, purporting to be made by him, and apparently executed by the party therein named as lessee, but by no one else. No [623] proof of any search for the part executed by the lessor, or of notice to produce it, was offered. The reception of this deed in evidence was objected to; but the learned Judge overruled the...
To continue reading
Request your trial