Duke of Leeds against The Corporation of New Radnor
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 February 1789 |
| Date | 07 February 1789 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 29 E.R. 189
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Mayor of Basingstoke v. Lord Bolton, 1852, 1 Drew, 290.
duke of leeds against the Corporation of new radnor. Bolls, 8th May [1788]. [See Mayor of Basingstoke v. Lord Bolton, 1852, 1 Drew, 290.] [Vide S. C. on appeal, 2 Bro. C. C. 518.]--Bill, for a fee-farm rent, retained for a year, and plaintiff to try his title at law.(l) The bill stated that Queen Elisabeth, by letters patent dated 20th July 1562, granted to the corporation of the town and borough of New Radnor certain lands, messuages, 190 leeds (duke op) v. corporation of new radnor zero, c. c. 339. tenements, and hereditaments, and also certain tolls of fairs, markets heriots, and other services and revenues, and various other privileges, reserving to herself thereout, in consideration of such grant, to her and her successors kings and queens of England the payment of an annual sum of 37, 8s. IfdI. That King Charles the Second, by letters patent dated 8th July 1674, gave to Thomas Earl of Danby, afterwards Duke of Leeds (amongst other things), all that annual or fee-farm [339] rent of 37, 8s. l%d. issuing out, or payable for, the town of New Radnor, to hold the same to the said Thomas Earl of Danby, his heirs and assigns for ever. That the said Earl of Danby, from the time of granting the letters patent, received the rent at Michaelmas yearly, by the bailiff or town clerk of the borough, for the time being, and after his death, the bailiff, &c., paid the rent to the several persons deriving title to the same under the said Earl, that the said Earl's estate and interest in the fee-farm rent was become vested in the plaintiff, as his heir, and that the plaintiff's guardian and trustees had, during the plaintiff's minority, received it from the bailiff or town-clerk of the town of New Radnor, and that such payment had been continued regularly, during the plaintiff's minority, and until Michaelmas 1765; that the sum of 90 had been paid to the plaintiff's agent in November 1778, upon account, but that there had accrued and was due to the plaintiff, for arrears, the sum of 748, 2s. lid.; that the plaintiff could not distrain for the arrears on the lands out of which the rent was issuing, they having undergone various alterations in the boundaries and descriptions, and having been let out to different people, and that a great part of the revenues of the corporation arose from the tolls of...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Archbishop of Dublin v Coote and Lord Trimleston
...LORD TRIMLESTON. Brady v. Fitzgerald Reported post. Duke of Bridgewater v. EdwardsENR 6 Bro. P. C. 368. Duke of Leeds v. New RadnorENR 2 Bro. C. C. 518. Benson v. BaldwinENR 1 Atk. 598. Manly v. HawkinsUNK 1 Dr. & Wal. 363. Holder v. ChamburyENR 3 P. Wms. 255. Duke of Leeds v. ParnellENR 1 ......
- Moffatt against Farquharson