Hesketh v Lee et Al
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 85 E.R. 756
COURT OF KING'S BENCH
[84] 15. hesketh versus lee & al'. Pasch. 21 Car. II. Regis, Rot. 408. England, to wit.-Our lord the King has sent to his Chancellor in his County Palatine of Lancaster, or to his deputy there, his writ close in these words, to wit; Charles the 2d, by the grace of God, of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the faith, &c. to our Chancellor in our County Palatine of Lancaster, 2 WM8. SAUND.. PASCH. 22 CAR. II. REGIS 757 or to his deputy there, greeting: because in the record and proceedings, and also [85] in the giving of judgment, in a plaint which was in our Court at Lancaster by our writ of entry sur disseisin in the post, between Thomas Legh, Esq. and Alexander Rigby, Esq. and Thomas Hesketh, of the manors of Rufforth, Martholme, Harwood, Longton, Croston, Hesketh cum Becconsal, Tarlton cum Sallom, Mawdesley, Wrightington, Shevington, Houghwicke and Nether-Wittingham with the appurtenances, and of 323 messuages, 4 mills, 1000 acres of land, 267 acres of meadow, 1000 acres of pasture, 2000 acres of moor, and 2000 acres of furze and heath with the appurtenances in Rufforth, Martholme, Harwood, Longton, Croston, Hesketh cum Becconsal, Tarlton cum Sallom, Mawdesley, Wrightington, Shevington, Houghwicke, Nether-Wittingham, Holmeswood, Tattleworth, Lancaster, Preston, Wigan, Orms-church, Penworthara, Hatton, Muchhoole, Bretherton,Eccleston juxtaCroaton,Bisphani, Newbrowe, Newborough in Lathom, Parbould, Samlesbury, Newton cum Scales, Barton in Downholland, Bickerstaffe, Winstanley, and in Scaresbricke, with the appurtenances in the county of Lancaster, manifest error has invented, to the great damage of the said Thomas Hesketh, as by his complaint we are informed : we being willing that the error, if any there be, should in due manner be corrected, arid full and speedy justice done to the parties aforesaid in this behalf, do command you, that by our writ under the seal of the County Palatine aforesaid, you make your mandate to our justices at Lancaster, that they send to us into the Chancery of the said county under their seals, the record and proceedings of the said recovery, with all things touching the same, which are in their custody, as it is said, before 15 days of Easter, and our writ, which shall thereof come to them, and that you send to us distinctly and openly under the seal of the county aforesaid, the record and proceedings of the recovery aforesaid, and this writ, so that we may have them in five weeks from the day of Easter, wheresoever we shall then be in England, that the record and proceedings of the said recovery being inspected, we may cause to be further done thereupon, for correcting that error, what of right, and according to the law and custom of England ought to be done. Witness ourself at Westminster, the 4th day of February in the 21st year of our reign. The answer of Sir Thomas Ingram, Kiit. Chancellor of the County Palatine of our lord the King at Lancaster to this writ: By virtue of this writ to me directed and delivered, I have, by another writ duly made under the seal of the said County Palatine, made my mandate to the justices within mentioned, as within I am commanded; which said justices, to wit, Sir Christopher Turner, Knt. one of the Barons of the Exchequer of our lord the now King at Westminster, and Sir Richard Rainsford, Knt. one of the justices of our said lord the King assigned to hold pleas before the King himself, justices of our said lord the King at Lancaster, have answered that the record and proceedings of the recovery whereof mention is within [86] made, with all things concerning the same, they have sent to me in the said Chancery of the County Palatine aforesaid, which said record and proceedings of the said recovery I send to our said lord the King at the day within- contained, as within I am commanded. By the Chancellor himself. Original and judicial writs of the session holden at Lancaster, on Friday the 30th day of August, in the 13th year of the reign of our Lord Charles the 2d, by the grace of God, of England, Scotland, Prance, and Ireland, King, defender of the faith, &c., Charles the 2d, by the grace of God, of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the faith, &c. to the Sheriff of Lancashire, greeting: command Thomas Hesketh, Esq. that justly and without delay he render to Thomas Legh and Alexander Rigby, Esqrs. the manors of R. M. H. L. C. H. cum B. T. cum C. S. M. W. S. H. and N. W. with the appurtenances, and 323 messuages, 4 mills, 1000 acres of land, 267 acres of meadow, 1000 acres of pasture, 2000 acres of moor, and 2000 acres of furze and heath with the appurtenances, in R. M. H. L. C. H. cum B. T. cum S. M. W. S. H N. W. H. T. L. P. W. O. P. M. B. E. juxta C. B. N. in L. P. S. N. cum S. B. in L). B. W. and S. with the appurtenances, which they claim to be their right and inheritance, and into which the said Thomas Hesketh hath not entry, unless after the disseisin which Hugh Hunt thereof unjustly, and without judgment, hath made to the aforesaid Thomas Legh and Alexander Rigby, within 30 years now last past, as 758 HESKETH V. LEE AND AL* 2 WMB. SA0ND. 87. they say, and whereof they complain that the said Thomas Hesketh deforces them. And unless he shall do so, and if the said Thomas Legh and Alexander shall make you secure of prosecuting their claim, then summon by good summonera the said Thomas Hesketh, that he be before our justices at Lancaster, on the first day of the next General Session of the Assizes to be holden there, to shew wherefore he hath not done it; and have you there the summoners and this writ. Witness ouraelf at Lancaster, the 4th day of August, in the 13th year of our reign. Otway. For 301. paid into hanaper by John Otway, Esq. for a fine of the within-written, who affirms that the tenements within-written do not exceed the value of 3001. a year.-Pledges of prosecution, John Doe and Richard Roe.-Summoners, John Den and Richard Fen. sir george middleton, Knt. and Bart. Sheriff. Pleas at Lancaster of the session holden there on Friday the 30th day of August, in the 13th year of the reign of Charles the 2d, by the grace of God, of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the faith, &c. before Sir Christopher Turner, Knt. one of the Barons of the Exchequer of our lord the King, and Sir Robert Bernard, Knt. Serjeant at Law, Justices of our said lord the King at Lancaster. Roll 7. Our lord the King has sent, to our justices at Lancaster, his letters sealed under the Privy Seal of our said lord the King in these words: Charles the 2d, by the grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, &c. to our trusty and well beloved Sir Christopher Turner, Knt. Chief Justice of the Common Pleas for the County Palatine of Lancaster, and Sir Robert Bernard, Knt. Justice of our said Court [87] of Common Pleas, and to our Chief Justice and other justices of the same Court for the time being, and to all other our officers and ministers of the same Court, greeting. Whereas Thomas Hesketh an infant, and Lucy Molyneux his mother, and guardian, by their humble petition to us exhibited, have shewn unto us, that about the year of our Lord God 1641, there was a marriage agreed upon between Robert Hesketh the petitioner Thomas's late father, and the petitioner Lucy, which was accordingly had and solemnized, and that, in pursuance of the said agreement, Robert Hesketh the petitioner Thomas's late grandfather, and Robert Hesketh the petitioner Thomas's late father, did by indenture dated the 9th day of November 1641, for the settling of a jointure upon the petitioner Lucy, covenant to settle all their manors, messuages, land, tenements, hereditaments and premises, lying within the County Palatine of Lancaster, to the uses in the indenture named ; that afterwards it waa agreed to settle the same by Act of Parliament, and to that end and purpose a bill was brought into the Parliament then sitting, but the late differences and distractions falling out, it was not proceeded in, and thereupon the said petitioner Thomas's late father did by indenture dated the 22d day of October 1647, covenant that he would with all speed settle the said manors, messuages, land and tenements to the uses in the said indenture mentioned, and in pursuance of the said covenant did by his indenture dated the 14th day of February in the year of our Lord God 1649, covenant with Richard Haworth and William Halsall that, at the then next Assizes to be holden at Lancaster, he would suffer a recovery of several of the manors, houses and demesne lands to the uses in the said indenture dated the 22d day of October, in the year of our Lord 1647 ; arid at some other Assizes following would [88] suffer another recovery of all the tenements, parcel of the said manor's, to such uses as in the aforesaid indenture is mentioned. And that in pursuance thereof a recovery was executed of the said manors, houses and demesne lands, but before the 2d Assizes following the said Robert Hesketh the petitioner Thotnas'a late father died, and that by reason thereof one part of the petitioner Thomas's estate stands settled and another not, and part of the petitioner Lucy's jointure is assured to her and the other not, so that the rest and the residue of the said manors, messuages, lands and tenements cannot be perfectly settled and assured according to the aforesaid covenants and agreements, but by a recovery to be had and suffered by the said Thomas Hesketh who is within age; the said petitioners have therefore humbly prayed, that we would be graciously pleased, in a case of this nature, and of so great importance, to give you authority and warrant for suffering and passing of a recovery of that part of the petitioner's estate which is yet unsettled, to the end that the same may be 3 WMB. SAOND. 8S. PASCH. 22 CAR. II. REGIS...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Veale v Warner
...award ; 2 Wils. 148; nor on the plea of mil tiel agard pleaded to debt on bond; 4 T. R. 588, Praed v. Duchess of Cumberland, per Duller J. 2 Saund. 84; for it does not seem necessary for the plaintiff to prove any thing else on the issue of nul tiel agard, but execution of the award within ......
-
Cutler and Others v Southern and Others
...Simmes. 3 T. R. 374, Dujfiekl v. Scott. For it lies equally in the knowledge of the obligor and obligee.(a) (3) Accord. Co. Litt. 304 a. 2 Saund. 84, Sichards v. Hodges. 1 Lutw. 422, Parkas v. Middleton. 1 Ld. Eaym. 233, Bosse v. Hodges. 2 Ld. Kaym. 1449, White v. Clever. 1 Wils. 334, Ellio......
-
Richards et Al v Hodges
...did not set up a title inconsistent with that disclosed in the declaration. 1 Bing. N. C. 435, Prince v. Erunatte. 1 Scott, 342, S. C.] 2 WMS. SAUND. 84. PASCH. 22 CAR. II. REGIS 755 capias ad satisfaeiendum," tender issues in fact, and not in law; that if the plaintiff had taken issue on t......
-
Tildell against Walter
...the custom of the parish, were paid to the parson.-Twisden, (a) See Hob. 196. (a) The Court affirmed the recovery. S. C. 1 Vent. 74. S. C. 2 Saund. 94. S. C. 1 Sid. 446. 724 HILARY TERM, 21 AND 22 CAR. 2. IN B. R. l MOD. 31. Justice. If the endowment of the vicarage be lost, small tithes mu......