Furnival v Crew
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 May 1744 |
| Date | 01 May 1744 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 851
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Swinburne v. Milburn, 1884, 9 App. Cas. 853.
Case 31.-norms versus le neve, April 28, 1744. S. 0. ante, 26, Semb.-A nominal manor-will pass under the general words messuages, lands, tenements, and hereditaments. The commissioners who had been appointed to settle the boundaries between the parties, and for separating freehold and copyhold, certified to the Chancellor a doubt they had, whether a manor was included under the words lands, tenements, and hereditaments, in the conveyances of old Oliver Le Neve. Lord Chancellor,. There is no question, but a manor may pass by the word hereditaments. The question then will be, Whether it will pass as it is placed in these two conveyances 1 In the first deed are these words, " also all those messuages, lands, tenements, and " hereditaments, of the said Oliver Le Neve, situate, lying, and being in the towns, &c." This is large enough to take in any of the lands in the places before mentioned. Now, where a man is making a general settlement of his estate, I am of opinion, that a nominal manor will pass under these general words, though there is a sort of heraldry in the law in some cases; as for instance, in the acts of parliament relating to the clergy. As to comprized, or nient comprised, in the law, upon this head, enjoyment will determine whether it is comprized or not. The commissioners had nothing to do, in setting out boundaries, to consider it as a manor, but only to distinguish freehold from copyhold : for manors do not properly consist of metes and bounds, therefore I will quash the certificate of the commissioners. (Note : " His Lordship doth order, that such part of the said certificate whereby " the said commissioners certify their doubt concerning the said manor and court " leet, be quashed ; the same not being warranted by the commission.") As to the question, Whether the expence of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keppell v Bailey
...conscience, and which a Court of Equity would not suffer them to violate (Case of the Stei/ne at Brighton, unreported ; Fiirniml v. Creive, 3 Atk., 83 ; Treatise of Equity, 1046 KEPPELL V. BAILEY 2 MY. 4 K. 578. B. I. ch. 5, s. 4; City of London v. Richmond, P. Ch., 156; S. C. 2 Vern., 421 ......
-
Worley v Frampton
...to be a right which runs with the land : why then should it not be protected by a covenant running also with the land? Furnival v. Crew (3 Atk. 83, 88); Barclay v. Raine (1 Sim. & St. 449). It is a right which the Plaintiffs may insist upon in equity against the Defendant, if the Defendant ......
-
The Copper Mining Company v Beach
...8 Beav. 322 j Powell v. Lloyd, 2 Y. & Jer. 372. (2) See Bridges v. Hitchcock, 5 Bro. P. C. 6; Cooke v. Sooth, Cowp. 819; Funaml v. Grew, 3 Atk. 83; Moore v. Foley, 6 Ves. 232; Iggulden v. May, 9 Ves. 325, and 7 186 COOPER MINING COMPANY V. BEACH UBEAV.4B. A dispute arose respecting the term......
-
Baynham v Guy's Hospital
...construing a covenant to be for a perpetual renewal, unless it is perfectly clear, that the covenant does mean it. Furnival v. Grew, 3 Atk. 83, which is relied on in Cooke v. Booth, had clear words for a perpetual renewal; which made it impossible to construe it otherwise. In this case how ......