Holcort v Heel
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 April 1799 |
| Date | 22 April 1799 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 126 E.R. 976
IN THE COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER AND IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS
Commented on, Campbell v. Wilson, 1830, 3 East, 298.
holcroft v. heel. April 22d, 1799. [Commented on, Campbell v. Wilson, 1803, 3 East, 298.] If the grantee of a market under letters patent from the crown, suffer another to erect a market in his neighbourhood and use it for the space of twenty-three years without interruption, he is by such user barred of his action on the case for disturbance of his market. The crown is not. Quaere. Whether if no specific toll ba granted in the letters patent, the grantee be entitled to any toll, and whether in such ease he can support any action for an injury to his market (a)? Action on the case; For that whereas the Plaintiff, on the 1st day of March 1798 and before, waa and from thence hitherto hath been and still is lawfully possessed of a certain close, [401] called Market Close in Northcott, otherwise Southall, in the county of Middlesex, and of a market holden, and to be holden there, in or upon every Wednesday, for the buying and selling of horses and all other kinds of cattle, together with toll, stallage and other commodities, to such like market appertaining; whereby great gains, profit and advantages, during all the time aforesaid, until the committing of the grievance hereafter next mentioned, accrued to and were received by the said Plaintiff, to wit, at, &c., yet the Defendant well knowing the premises, but contriving and fraudulently intending craftily and subtilly to deceive and defraud tlie said Plaintiff, and to deprive the said Plaintiff of the profits emoluments and advantage! which he might and ought to have had and enjoyed from his said market, whilst the said Plaintiff was so possessed of his said market, to wit, on Wednesday the 7th day of March 1798, and on divers other Wednesdays between that day and the day of suing out the original writ of the said Plaintiff, being days on which the said market of the said Plaintiff ought to be held and was held, at &c. wrongfully and injuriously and without any legal warrant or authority whatsoever, at Hayes, in the said county of Middlesex, near to Northcott, otherwise Southall aforesaid, and within three miles of the said place where the said market of the said Plaintiff was so held and ought to be held as aforesaid, levied and erected and caused to be levied and erected a certain other market for the buying and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe, d. THE RIGHT HON. GEORGE HAMILTON MARQUIS of DONEGAL, v RIGHT HON. HENRY SPENCER BARON TEMPLEMORE
...326. Doe v. KempENR 2 Bing. N. C. 102. Saunders v. Lord Annesley 2 Sch. & Lef. 101. Hillary v. Waller 12 Ves. 254. Holcroft v. HeelENR 1 Bos. & pul. 400. Campbell v. WilsonENR 3 East, 294. Doe d. Freeland v. Burt 1 T. REp. 701. Duke of Devonshire v. Hodnett 1 Hud. & Br. 322. The King v. Smi......
-
Beauman v Kinsella
...366; S. C., 22 L. J., Ch., 846. Hammond v. CookeENR 6 Bing. 174. Gray v. BondENR 5 Moo. 527; S. C., 2 Br. & B. 667. Holcroft v. HeelENR 1 Bos. & P. 400. COMMON LAW REPORTS. 291 before us has been discussed, it has been discussed upon the T. T. 1858. ueen' sBeneh. statement of the matters wh......
-
Benjamin v Andrews
...and carried out practically as a market, must, for the purposes of this act, be assumed to have had a legal origin. In Holcrofl v. Heel, 1 Bos. & P. 400, it was held, that, if the grantee of a market under letters-patent from the Grown suffer another to erect a market in his neighbourhood, ......
-
J. J. Murphy v Cornelius Daly
...Juley v. Stockley 1 Hog. 247. Creagh v. CarmichaelUNK 7 Ir. Eq. Rep. 334. Penwarden v. ChingUNK 1 Moo. & M. 400. Holcroft v. HeelENR 1 Bos. & P. 400. Campbell v. WilsonENR 3 East, 298. Tresham v. LambeENR 2 Br. & G. 46; 8 Jac. 1. Gunning v. GunningUNK 2 Show. 8. Simmons v. NortonENR 7 Bing.......