Garland v Jekyll and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 November 1824 |
| Date | 18 November 1824 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 311
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 9 Moore, 502; 3 L. J C. P. (O. S.) 227.
garland v. jekyll and another. July 5, 1824. [S. C. 9 Moore, 502; 3 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 227.] A copyhold property, which when in the hands of a single owner, pays but one heriot, but pays several if divided among several owners, shall again pay but one heriot if it again becomes united in the person of a single owner. This was an action of assumpsit for money had and received, and was tried at the sittings after Hilary term 1822, before Dallas C. J., when a verdict was found for the Plaintiff, subject to a case, in substance as follows : In the manor of Weeks Park Hall in Essex, there are, arid from time immemorial have been, divers customary [274] and heriotable copyhold tenements of inheritance, held by the respective tenants thereof unto them and their heirs and assigns by the rod, and by copy of the court rolls of the manor, at the will of the lord of the manor, according to the custom of the manor, by the reuts, customs, and services, therefore due and of right accustomed. There had from time immemorial been a custom within the manor for the lord for the time being, upon the death of every copyhold tenant of any customary and heriotable copyhold tenement or tenements within the manor, to take for heriots in respect thereof so many of the beasts which were of such customary and heriotable copyhold tenant at the time of his death, as the number of heriots due in respect of such custorairy and heriotable copyhold tenements did at that time amount to: and it was contended at the trial, that the custom was for the lord of the manor to take for heriota such beasts which were of the tenant at the time of his death as were then the best beasts, or such as the lord should elect to take as the best. In 1735 Samuel Warner was a copyhold tenant of two customary and heriotable copyhold tenements within the manor, which he held, and was seised of to him and his heirs by the rod, and by copy of the court rolls of the manor, at the will of the lord, according to the custom of the manor, by the rents, customs, and services, therefore due, and of right accustomed, viz. one copyhold tenement, consisting of three parcels of land with the appurtenances, parcel of Westland, customary and heriotable, containing about nine acres, abutting upon lauds called Edmund's Lands ; and another copyhold tenement, consisting of two pieces of laud, another parcel of Westland, being customary and heriotable, containing about ten acres, abutting upon Derryhill-hall ground. [275] In the same year Warner died so seised of and holding the copyhold premises as above; and the following presentments, surrenders, admittances, and other proceedings respecting the said and other copyhold premises afterward took place at divers courts baron of the manor, and entries thereof, and of the divers heriota and rents payable in respect thereof, were made in the court rolls as follow: 5th June 1735. Death presented of Warner seisod of the above-mentioned copyhold premises, and finding of jury that by his death there happened to the lord two heriots, (two cows, value about 51.,) and proclamation thereon made. 6th October 1735. Separate admission of Catherine Graham to one undivided fourth of the same premises, as her right and inheritance as one of the four daughters and coheirs of Warner, to hold to ber, her heirs, and assigns for ever, as her right and 312 GARLAND V. JKKYLL 2 BINCt. 276. inheritance, of the lord, at the will, &c., according to the custom of the manor, by the rents, customs, and services therefore due and of right accustomed, and a fine of twenty guineas was set on the whole premises. Same admission of Mary Warner. Same, Eleanor Warner. Same, Ann Warner. 15th September 1736. Death of C. Graham presented, with general proclamations. 6th September 1737. Death of Mary Warner, presented as seised of an undivided fourth part of the premises, and that Eleanor and Ann Warner were her sisters and coheirs; but whether ahe left any heriot at the time of her death the homage knew not. Proclamation made. [276] Also a rental of the several sums yearly issuing out of, and payable from the freehold and copyhold lands and tenements holden of the manor, made and reserved on the inspection of the ancient rolls, rentals, and examination of the ancient tenants at a court holden of the manor, 26th September 1737, before William Mayhew, gentleman, steward. Inter alia. Tenants Names. What they holil. Nn. of Acres. b.v what "Rents. When admitted. What Heriots due. S. d. Ann Warner, spinster, Holds to her and her hull's for ever one undivided t'oui'th of three parcels called West- land, heriotable, containing by estimation, 9 3 9 (ith Oct. 1735. 1 Also one undivided fourth part of two other pieces of land par- cels of West/land, herlotahle, containing by estimation, 10 3 9 1 Eleanor Warner, Holds another fourth part of the same. Mary Warner, Holds another fourth part of the same. Graham Catherine, lato Holds another fourth part of Catherine Warner, the same. spinster, 19 7 0 2 14th November 1737. Kitty, the wife of Langhorn Warren, clerk; Eleanora, the wife of William Bunbury, clerk; Ann Graham, spinster : and John Elliston, an infant son of John Elliston by Sarah his wife, late Sarah Graham, spinster, were severally admitted at their own desire as tenants in common, and not as joint tenants, to one undivided fourth part of a fourth of said premises of which Catherine Graham lately died seised, as her coheirs. [277] To hold unto them, their heirs, and assigns respectively, for ever, by the rents, &o,, and they gave the lord for their several fines as per margin. (None appear, nor claim of heriot.) 23d May 1738. Kitty Warren surrendered to the use of her will notwithstanding coverture. 18th January 1743. After reciting the admission of Catherine Graham, Mary, Eleanor, nck Ann Warner on the 6th October 1735, as the four daughters and coheiresses of Samuel Warner, and the entries of 15th September 1736, and 14th November 1737, The death of Mary Warner was presented, and that at the time of her death she was seised of one undivided fourth of the said premises, and that John Elliston the infant was also dead, seised of a fourth of the [said premises, to which his mother was entitled after the death of Catherine Graham; but whether either of them left any heriot the homage knew not. Admission thereon of Eleanor and Ann Warner, spinsters, and Kitty Warren and Eleanora Bunbury, as follows: 2BIW3.178. GARLAND V. JEKYLL 313 Eleanor and Ann Warner each to an undivided third part of a third part of that fourth part of the said premises of which Mary their sister died seised ; and Kitty Warren, Eleanora Bunbury, and Ann Graham, were each admitted to a third of that fourth of a fourth of said premises to which John Elliaton, their sister's son, was admitted and died seised of; and also each to a third of a third of that fourth of which Mary Warner, their aunt, died seised. To hold to Eleanor aud Ann Warner, Kitty, Eleanora, and Ann Graham respec-tivelyv and to their respective heirs and assigns for ever, of the lord, &c., according to the custom, &c., fines as per margin. (None appear.) [278] Same court. Eleanor and Ann surrendered to the use of their respective wills. 2d February 1743. Kitty surrendered to the use of her will. 3d May 1762. Death of Lady Eleanora Bunbury presented, seised of said undivided parts, and proclamation made. 14th March 1763. Death of Kitty Warren presented, seised, &c., the homage are informed that Erasmus Warren, clerk, is her only son and heir; but whether she left any animal to seise for a heriot they know not. 14th September 1763. After reciting admissions of Eleanor Warner on 6th of October 1735, and on 18th January 1743, Presenting her death, seised, &c., and that Ann Warner was her sister and heir; but whether she left any animal as a heriot was not known ; Ann was admitted under the will of Ellen to all her shares of the premises, to hold to her, her heirs, and assigns of the lady, &a, aud paid for fine as per margin. (Fine for the fourth five guineas ; for the other parts 11s. 6d.) Same courl, Erasmus Warren, clerk, only son and heir of Kitty Warren, and devisee under her will, was admitted to her shares. To hold to him and his heirs for ever, of the lady, and paid for fines as per margin. (Fine in the whole 21. 4s. lOd, saving to the lady the rights of heriots, &c.) Same court. Thomas Charles Bunbury waa admitted as only son and heir of Eleanora Bunbury to all her shares of the premises, to hold to him and his heirs, as his right and inheritance, of the lady, &c., and paid the several fines that appear in the margin. (Fines in the whole 21. 4s. lOd.) [279] 2d June 1773. Recital of ths admissions of Ann Warner. Presentment of her death, but who was her next heir, or whether she left any animal to seise as an heriot the homage know not. 27th August 1773. After reciting the death of Ann Warner, Thomas C. Bunbury waa admitted as one of the heirs at law of Ann Warner to one undivided third part of a fourth part of the premises to which she was admitted on the 6th of October 1735, as one of the daughters and coheirs of Samuel Warner; and also to a third part of a tbird of a fourth to which she was admitted on the 18th January 1743, on the death of Mary Warner, her sister; and also of one other third part of a fourth to which she wa admitted, under the will of her sister Ellen, on the 14th September 1763, to hold the said parts, &c., to him, his heirs, and assigns for ever, as his inheritance at the will of the lord, for fine as per margin. (Fine guineas.) Same court. Admission of Ann Hanmer, wife of Walden Hanmer, to same proportions, aa one of the heirs at law of Ann Warner, to hold in like manner; fine as per margin. (Five guineas.) Same court. Admission of Erasmus Warren, clerk, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Australian Crime Commission v Stoddart
...so scholarly and respected a judge had denied it no one else would have supported it. 260 Garland v Jekyll (1824) 2 Bing 273 at 296–297 [ 130 ER 311 at 261 See below at [141]–[150]. 262 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 at 567. 263 Colonial Times ( Hobart), 20 July 1831 at 3. 264 Re Rob......
-
Lanyon v Carne et Al Executors of Cara
...the lord is entitled to a heriot from each of them, yet if the several portions are reunited in one person, one heriot only is pay able. 2 Bing. 273, Garland v. Jekyll. 9 Moo. 502, S. C. 6 B. & C. 2, Holloway v. Berkeley. 9 D. & K. 83, S. C. But it is still an unsettled point, whether in a ......
-
Holloway and Another against Berkeley
...upon which this question depends, Attree v. Scutt (6 East, 476), upon which the defendant relies, and a later decision, Garland v. Jekyll (2 Bing. 273), which is expressly in point for the plaintiff. The former case related to fines payable on admittance to a copyhold, and therefore is not ......
-
Cattley v Arnold
...of the Defendant, Coape. [They cited also Coke's Complete Copyholder, 173, and Attree v. Scott (6 East, 476; but see Garland v. Jekyll, 2 Bing. 273).] Mr. Pearson, in reply. The custom of the manor in question in the case before Mr. Booth must have been peculiar, the manor being vested as t......
-
Legal and Reputed
...Hospital (1853) 17 Beav 366, 51 ER 1075: see 17.5. 50 Townley v Gibson (1788) 2 TR 701, 100 ER 377: see 9.5. 51 (1824) 2 Bing at 292, 130 ER 311. justice, that this permanent interest has placed copyholders in the happy situation in which they are now found. That case concerned the right of......
-
Table of Cases
...(1898) 62 JP 547 6.5 Gann v Free Fishers of Whitstable (1864/5) 11 HLC 192, 35 LJCP 29, 11 ER 1305 12.7, 15.5 Garland v Jekyll (1824) 2 Bing 273, 330, 130 ER 311, 332 8.5, 27.4 Gateward’s Case (1606) 6 Co Rep 59b, [1558–1774] All ER Rep 48, 77 ER 344 4.4, 4.8 Gerard, (The Lord) v The Lady G......