Gaunt v Wainman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 June 1836 |
| Date | 07 June 1836 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 132 E.R. 335
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 3 Scott, 413; 2 Hodges, 184; 5 L. J. C. P. 344.
[69] gaunt v. wainman. June 7, 1836. [S. C. 3 Scott, 413; 2 Hodges, 184; 5 L. J. C. P. 344.] Tenant took lands from the assignees of demandant's husband by deed which described them as freehold : Held, that he was not estopped by that deed, as against demandant in dower, to prove them to be leasehold. To a writ of dower the tenant pleaded that the husband of demandant was not at the time of her marriage with him seized of such estate in the messuages and lands, &c. in question, whereof he could endow the demandant. At the trial it appeared that in October 1824 the assignees of the demandant's husband, then a bankrupt, conveyed the premises in question to the Defendant under the description of, "All that messuage, and all such plot or part as is of the nature or tenure of freehold, of and in a close called Near Bank." The tenant proved that the premises were leasehold : but, it being objected that he was estopped to offer this proof against the deed under which he had taken the premises, the verdict was entered for the demandant, with leave for the tenant to move to set it aside. 336 CROSS KEYS COMPANY V. EAWLINGS 3 BING. (N. C.)70. A rule nisi having been obtained accordingly, Cresswell and Hoggins, who shewed cause, referred to Sheph. Touchst. 53, and the authorities cited in the judgment of the Court in Lainson y. Tremere (I Adol. & Ell. 792), to shew that the tenant was estopped by the deed under which he claimed title to dispute the nature of the title conferred by that deed. [Tindal 0. J. As between the parties to that deed there may be an estoppel; but you set it up against a stranger to the deed.] The Defendant, buying the property subject to dower, bought it, in effect, of the wife as well as of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Low Lee Lian v Ban Hin Lee Bank Bhd
-
Kirkwood v Lloyd
...BeltonUNK 8 Ir. Eq. Rep. 113. The Duchess of Kingston's case Smith's Leading Cases, 1st ed., vol. 2, p. 439, et seq. Gaunt v. WainmanENR 3 Bing. N. C. 69. Robinson's caseUNK 5 Rep. 32, b. Locke v. NorborneENR 3 Mod. 141 R. v. Hebden And. 389. The Earl of DerbyENR 1 Ad. & El. 783. Keely v. B......
-
Re Major; Re Newman
... ... Lightbourn, and a stranger to the document, as the petitioner would be, could not take advantage of or be bound by the recital. See Gaunt v. Wainman (1836) 3 Bing NC 69 Per Tindal, C.J. at page 336. “I think that this is a case in which the defendant is not precluded ... ...