Goodtitle ex dim. Robert Edwards v Peter Bailey
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 1777 |
| Year | 1777 |
English Reports Citation: 98 E.R. 1260
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY AND COMMON PLEAS
goodtitle ex dim. robert edwards versus peter bailey. Friday, May 2d, 1777. In ejectment, which is a fictitious action to recover the possession, the lessor of the plaintiff shall not be permitted to defeat a solemn deed under his own hand, covenanting that the defendant shall enjoy the premises, and also, for further assurance. Upon shewing cause why the nonsuit entered in this case should not be set aside, and a new trial granted, the facts appeared to be as follow : It was an ejectment brought for two tenements in the county of Dorset, distinguished by the names of the greater and less tenement. The plaintiff claimed under the will of one Nicholas Edwards, dated March 12th, 1750, by which he devised the premises in question "to his wife F. Edwards, for life, and after her decease to his brother John Edwards, to be at his disposal: but in case he should happen to die before the said F. Edwards, then he gave the premises to his cousin [698] Robert Edwards, (the plaintiff,) and his heirs and assigns for ever : " and he died soon after. Upon his death, John Edwards entered into and kept possession of the greater tenement during his life; and by will devised both the tenements to the defendant Peter Bailey. He was possessed of several other premises which he devised to the lessor of the plaintiff, by the same will: and died in the life-time of Frances, the widow, who, upon the death of Nicholas her husband, entered into and kept possession of the less tenement till she died.-Upon the death of John, Peter Bailey, the defendant, took posaeaaion of the greater tenement, which John during his life had occupied. 2COWP. 899. GOODTITLE V. BAILEY 1261 Soon after, Robert, the lessor of the plaintiff, by deed of release, bearing date 5th January 1764, reciting the will of Nicholas, and also reciting the will of John Edwards, the brother of Nicholas; and further that Frances the widow had survived John, whereby the reversion of the premises was become vested in him Robert in fee ; reciting also that it bad been agreed that he the said Robert should renounce all his right, title, and interest in the said premises, to Peter Bailey, the said Nicholas Edwards having no power to devise the same; he did thereby renounce, remise, release, and for ever quit claim to the said Peter Bailey, and the heirs male of his body, all the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
EDWARD LEE & Company Ltd v N1 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS Ltd
...(1830, 1831) 1 Russ & My 506; Doran v Kenny (1869) IR 2 Eq 148; Gatien Motor Co v Continental Oil [1979] IR 406; Goodtitle v Bailey (1777) 2 Cowp 597; Gov & Co of the Bank of Ireland v Fitzmaurice [1989] ILRM 452; Hardiman v Galway County Council [1966] IR 124; Hare v Nicoll [1966] 2 QB ......
-
Simmons v Mitchell; Mitchell v Simmons
...and he is now estopped from denying that assertion. 16 In this connection the following cases are relevant (i) Goodtitle v Bailey (1777) 2 Cowp 597. (ii) Roberts v Security Co. Ltd. [1897] 1 Q.B. 111, C.A. (iii) Greer v Kettle [1938] A.C. 156, H.L. 17 Emily Ollivierre, as stated, quit the l......
-
Smart v Noel
...rule, being general words, are subject to the same elasticity of construction as general words on the parcels.” 8 In Edwards v. Bailey, (1777) 2 Cowp 597, Lord Mansfield at page 1262 said: “The rules laid down in respect of the construction of deeds are found in law, reason and common sense......