Doe, on the joint and several demises of George and Frances his Wife, against Jesson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 January 1805 |
| Date | 26 January 1805 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 1217
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
DOE, ON THE JOINT AND SEVERAL DEMISES OF GEOEGE -AND FRANCES his Wife, against jesson. Saturday, Jan. 26th, 1805. Where the ancestor died seised, leaving a son and daughter infants, and on the death of the ancestor a stranger entered, and the son soon after went to sea, and was supposed to have died abroad within age, held that the daughter was not entitled to 20 years to make her entry after the death of her brother, but only to 10 years; more than 20 years having in the whole elapsed since the death of the person last seised. This was an ejectment for a house and a small parcel of land, which was tried before^Booke J. at the last assizes at Northampton ; and the principal question was, ò whether the action were brought in time within the 2d clause of exceptions in the Statute of Limitations, 21 Jac. 1, c. 16. The person last seised of the premises, from whom the lessors of the plaintiff claimed, was one Thomas Jesson, on whose death in the year 1777 David, his elder brother, took possession of them and transmitted the possession to the defendant his grandson. Thomas Jesson left a son John and a daughter Frances him surviving. John was baptized in 1767, and after the death of his father, being then about 10 years of age, was put out apprentice to the sea service by the [81] parish, and was seen by a witness on his return from his first voyage about a year after the father's death : soon after which he went to sea again, and had not been heard of since, and was believed to be dead. Frances, the daughter, one of the lessors of the plaintiff, was baptized on the 21st of May 1771, and afterwards married George the other lessor. It was contended at the trial by the defendant's counsel that the ejectment was out of time; for it was uncertain-when John, the son of Thomas K. B. xxxi.-39 1218 DOE V. JESSON 6 EAST, 82. the ancestor last seised, died, and that the 20 years given by the statute began to run immediately on the death of Thomas in 1777, and consequently expired in 1797 : or that if the statute favoured Frances the daughter till 10 years after the disability of her infancy was removed, at any rate as she was of full age in 1792, she ought to have brought her ejectment in 1802, and consequently this ejectment brought in 1804 was too late. On the other hand it was contended by the plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M'Mahon and Others v M'Elroy
...Jones v. SmithENR 1 Hare, 43. West v. ReidENR 2 Hare, 249. Doe v. NepeanENR 5 B. & Ad. 86. Nepean v. Doe 2 Mee. & W. 894. Doe v. JessonENR 6 East, 80. Doe v. DeakinENR 4 B. & Ald. 433. In the Goods of Elis. How 1 Sw. & Tris. Prob. Cas. 53. Scott v. The Mayor of Liverpool 1 De Gex. & Jon. 36......
-
Lewis v Thomas
...right [32] shall have first accrued," " shall have ceased to be under any such disability, or shall have died" (sect. 16): Doe d. George v. Jesson (6 East, 80)^ To avoid the operation of the statute the Plaintiffs suggest that the acts of Mary Davies are a fraud, and that the same were unkn......
-
Nepean v Doe d Knight
...presumption rather that life endures through the seven years, than that it expires within the seven years, according to Dot. d. George v. jkxkhh (6 East, 80). | Lord Ellenborough there laid it down, that "the presumption of the duration of life, with respect to whom no account can be given,......
-
Allman & Company v M'Cabe
...(1) L. R. 5 Ch. App. 139. (2) 2 M. & W. p. 912, per Lord Denman, C.J. (1) L. R. 6 Ch. App. 356. (1) 15 Q. B. 756. (1) 15 Q. B. 756. (2) 6 East, 80. (3) 4 B. & A. (1) 15 Q. B. 766. (1) 15 Q. B. 756. (2) 2 M. & W. 894, at p. 912. ...