Fenny, on the demise of Masters, against Durrant
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 November 1817 |
| Date | 06 November 1817 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 15
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
fenny, on the demise of masters, against dukeant(). Thursday, Nov. 6tb, 1817. The sheriff's return to an elegit stated that he had delivered an equal moiety of an house : Held that this return was void for not setting out the moiety by metes and bounds, and that the objection might be taken at Nisi Prius to an ejectment brought upon the elegit. Ejectment for a messuage, yard, and garden. At the trial before Dallas J. at the last Spring Assizes for Kent, it appeared that the lessor of the plaintiff claimed as tenant by elegit, the sheriffs return to which stated "That the jury found that J. C. (the debtor) was seised in his demesne as of fee of and in one messuage, and a yard, garden, and appurtenants, &c., and then or late in the occupation of Robert Durrani (the defendant), and being of the clear yearly value of 161. 16s. in all issues beyond reprizes;" one equal moiety of which said messuage, yard, garden, and appurtenants, on the day of taking the inquisition, the said sheriff had caused to be delivered to the said C. Masters (the lessor of the plaintiff) in the said writ named, to hold to her and her assigns as her freehold, according to the form of the statute, &c. Marryat for the defendant objected that the sheriff had not set out a moiety of [41] the house by metes and bounds as he ought to have done, and therefore the return was ill. The learned Judge, however, directed the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff, with liberty to the defendant to move. And accordingly in Easter term last, Marryat having renewed his objection, and cited the opinion of Holt C.J. in Pullen v. BirTcbeak, Carth. 453, obtained a rule nisi for entering a nonsuit, against which (a) Cause was shewn at Serjeants' Inn. 16 UMPHELBY V. M'LBAN 1B.&AUJ.42. Onslow Serjt. and Espinasse now shewed cause. Whatever might have been the doctrine when it was usual to put the tenant by elegit into possession, still at present when the practice is to bring an ejectment, it is sufficient for the sheriff to deliver that for which an ejectment will lie ; and it has been holden in Sullivane v. Seagrave (a)1, that ejectment will lie for part of a house. The language of the statute is " quod vice-comes liberet medietatem terrse," and it is wholly silent as to metes and bounds, and the writ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kirkwood v Lloyd
...KIRKWOOD and LLOYD. Fenny v. DuranENR 1 B. & Ald. 40. Denn v. The Earl of AbingdonENR 2 Doug. 473. Earl of Stamford v. NedhamENR 1 Lev. 160. Hanger v. Fry Cro Eliz. 310. Hunger v. Frey F. Moor. 341. White v. White 3 Ir. Law Rep. 118, n. Martin v. M'Causland 3 Ir. Law Rep. 113. Farrell v. Gl......
-
Kirkwood v Lloyd
...Franks v. MasonUNK 9 Ir. Eq. Rep. 358. Ryan v. CambieUNK 2 Ir. Eq. Rep. 328. Wright v. MaddockUNK 10 Jur. 366. Masters v. DurrantENR 1 B. & Ald. 40. Taylor v. Lord AbingdonENR 2 Doug. 473. Martin v. M'Causland 3 Ir. Law Rep. 113. White v. White Ibid, 118, note. Farren v. Ottiwell 2 Ir. Law ......