Doe on the Demise of Marriott v Edwards
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 January 1834 |
| Date | 17 January 1834 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 172 E.R. 1211
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
S. C. 1 Mood. & R 319. Subsequent proceedings with annotations, 5 B. & Ad 1065.
6 CAB. & P. 206. DOE V. EDWARDS 1211 Jan. 17th, 1834. DOE ON THE DEMISE OF MARRIOTT V. EDWARDS. (If, on the trial of an ejectment, it appear that the pariah is mis-stated in the declaration, the Judge will allow it to be amended under the btat 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 42, although the ejectment be for a forfeiture. If a lessor, who has only an equitable title, grants a lease, he has, as against his lessee, a good title by estoppel ; but if, after the lease, the lessor, by a mortgage deed grant all his interest in law and ib equity to a mortgagee, the lessee may give in evidence this deed, and thus prevent the lessor from recovering in ejectment on a forfeiture of the lease.) [S. C. 1 Mood. & R 319. Subsequent proceedings with annotations, 5 B. & Ad 1065.] Ejectment to recover premises at Knightsbndge. Plea-General issue. The lessor of the plaintiff had granted a lease of the property to a person named Greenacre, and in it the latter covenanted, inter alia, to build houses on the premises, which he had not done, and this ejectment was brought for a forfeiture. The lease was executed on the 6th of September, 1831, and was for ninety-three years In the declaration the property was stated to be ' in the parish of St. Margaret and St. John, Westminster." [209] Barstow suggested that the parish was " St. Margaret " Parke, J.-If the allegation had been that it was in the parishes of St. Margaret and St John, proof that it was in St Margaret would have done, so as to enable the lessor of the plaintiff to recover property in St Margaret. Gale, for the plaintiff.-Part may be in one parish and part in another. Parke, J.-If the word used had been parishes, that might have been so Gale, for the plaintiff, asked for leave to amend under the stat. 3 & 4 Will. IV c 42. Parke, J -If the defendant was not misled I shall allow the amendment. Barstow.-It is for a forfeiture Parke, J.-That makes no difference Barstow.-Ought they not to pay some costs for this amendment ? Parke, J.-If you have brought witnesses, or have been at any expense to prove that this was the parish of St. Margaret, I shall allow those costs Bajstow.-We have not brought witnesses, but we have depended on this point. Parke, J.-I shall consider whether I shall impose the terms of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe dem. Edwards v Leach
...can be no amendment in ejectment for a forfeiture ; but the law is clearly otherwise. In Doe dem. Marriott v. Edwards (1 Moo. & E. 319, 6 C. & P. 208), which, like the present case, was an ejectment for a forfeiture, the same learned baron amended the name of the parish (b) in which the pre......
-
Doe d. Marriott v Edwards and Others
...OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS, AND EXCHEQUER, AND ON THE NORTHERN AND WESTERN CIRCUITS. Doe d. Marriott and Edwards and Others S. C. 6 C. & P. 208. Subsequent proceedings with annotations, 5 B & Ad. 1065. Westminster, Jan. 21, 1834. doe d. marriott v. edwards and others. (Allegation that pr......
-
Lessee Murphy v Connolly and Another
...Lynch v. Lynch 4 Law Rec. O. S. 227. Clayton v. BurtenshawENR 5 B. & C. 41. Lant v. Peace 8 A. & E. 248. Doe d. Marriott v. EdwardsENR 6 C. & P. 208. Swainsbury v. MathersENR 4 M. & W. 347. Doe v. DayENR 13 East. 241. Doe d. Marriott v. EdwardsENR 6 C. & P. 208. 116 CASES AT LAW. 1843. Each......