Elias Tisdale v Sir William Essex
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 80 E.R. 185
King's Bench Division
39. elias tisdale versus sir william essex. Covenant. Plo. 140. a. 1 Eoll. 430. 847. 269. b. 274. a. Mo. 207. Mo. 861. Mesme Case. Vaugh. 120. Bulst. 3. R. s. 204. 1 Eo. 397. p. 23. Cr. Car. 207. Condition B. 141. Cr. Car. 172. Cr. Jac. 92. Elias Tisdale brought an action of covenant against Sir William Essex a baronet, and declared that it was agreed between them, by a bill of articles indented, in manner and form following: first, the said Sir William Essex convenit, promisit & agreavit ad & cum prsefato Elia, quod ipse idem Elias haberet, occuparet & gauderet, certain lands for seven years from the Feast of the Annunciation next ensuing the date of the bill, and covenanted, that he should quietly remove such buildings, as he should set up [35] at any time within three months after the time, and that he would make him as good and perfect demise of the premisses, or security for the quiet enjoying of it, as his counsel should think n't, and the plaintiff covenanted, that he would pay him 220 pounds a year for it during the term, and that he would deliver up the quiet possession of the land to Sir William Essex at the end of the term. And declared that he eutred into the lands the next day after our Lady-Day, and that one Henry Elsing eutred upon him and ejected him, and hath held him out ever since; which he lays to be the breach of his covenant to his damage of one thousand pounds, and produced in Court his bill of articles, dated in Febr. 10 Jacobi, whereupon the defendant did demur in law, and the questions were made two. The first, whether this were a naked covenant, or amounted to a lease of the land. The second, whether the ejectment by Elsing, being taken to be by wrong, because no title was laid in him (and the worst shall be taken against the pleader) shall be adjudged a breach of covenant in this case. And it was adjudged that this was a lease of the land for 7 years; for the words haberet occuparet & gauderet the lands, are the perfect words to give interest. And therefore 5 H. 7. 1. a licence to occupy is a lease, though 10 E. 4. seemeth to make a doubt, that the lessor may also occupy with him : but 21 H. 6. 37. Paston's opinion I allow, that if one licence me to sow his land, that is no lease : and therefore if I sow the land, the owner shall reap it. Also 3 & 4 Phil. & Mar. Dyer, 150. One made a lease to another for life, & provisum est...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe on the Demise of Isaac Winter against Perratt. Doeon The Several demises of Catherine Viney, Thomas Viney, and Thomas Green-Slade against Perratt. Goodtitle on The Several Demises of John Slade and John Staines Webb against Perratt
...male presumptive only, for if either of the grand-daughters bad had a son, that son would have been right heir male. So in Ashinhwrsfs case (Hob. 34), the claim seems to have been by a collateral heir of the devisor, against the daughters of the devisor, and a son of any of these daughters ......
-
Doe on the Demise of William Angell against Benedict John Angell Angell
...It is true chat Lord Coke's doctrine was supported up to 1722; Cmnden v. Clerke (Hob. 29, 31 (5th ed.); Moore, 860), Ashenhurst's case (Hob. 34), there cited, Southcott v. Stowell (Freern. C. B. 216, 225), Starling v. Mrick (Free. Ch. 54), Lord Ossuhtmi's case (3 Salk. 336), Dawes v. Ferrer......
-
Loftus v Stoney
...Beaulieu v. Lord Cardigan 1 Swanst. 566. Doe v. LainchberryENR 4 Beav. 231. Doe v. MorganUNK 2 B. & P., N. R. 220. Doe v. EvansENR Cited Hob. 34. Mayor, & c., of Hamilton v. HodsdenENR 3 Salk. 336. Sanderson v. DobsonENR 14 M. & W. 214. Day v. DavorenENR 2 P. Wms. 1. Acheson v. FairENR 1 Dr......
-
Cook v Gerrard
...would clearly raise cross-remainders by implication in a will, yet they cannot be implied in a deed. 1 Vent. 224. Bro. Devise, 38. Done, 44. Hob. 34, Cound&n v. Clerke.(f) The reason of this rule is to be found in 1 Rol. Abr. 837 (R), (e) [But cross-remainders are not created as to accruing......