Howard v Wood
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1826 |
| Date | 01 January 1826 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 89 E.R. 354
THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
[473] case 648. howard v. wood. S. C. 2 Lev. 245. T. Jo. 126. 2 Show. 21. 2 Mod. 173. See S. C. p. 478. Indebitatus assumpsit. In the honour of P. there was a court-leet and a court-baron, and after the death of A. the present steward, the stewardship of the honour was granted to the plaintiff and his son ; A. dies; the defendant keeps the court-baron, and received the fees, and the plaintiff brought this action as for money received to his use. Two questions were made, 1. Whether the grant of this office in reversion were good, or not? 2. Admitting that it were, whether or no a general indebitatus as for money received to his use, would lie or not 1 To the first point it was argued by Holt pro quer. that although the lord cannot grant the reversion of such an office as this, because he hath no reversion in him, yet it may be granted in reversion; but the reversion of an office cannot be granted, but where a man hath the inheritance of an office, and a particular estate is granted out; but here the lord hath no reversion of the office, for he cannot be officer to himself, but hath power to constitute an officer in reversion. He admitted that judicial offices could not be granted in reversion, because they (ft) Judgment in favour of the son and heir, which was reversed in the Exchequer Chamber: see the reason in T. Eay. 334, in marg. But the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber was afterwards itself reversed in the House of Lords. 2 Lev. 232-3. The same point was decided in another action of ejectment upon the same devise, in the case of Surchett v. Durdant, in B. E., and affirmed upon successive writs of error in the Exchequer Chamber and Parliament. See 2 Vent. 311. Comb. 153. Carth. 154. Skin. 205. And see further Darbison v. Beaumont, 1 P. Willms. 229. Ne.wc.omen v. Barkham, 2 Vern. 729. Daiues v. Ferrers, 2 P. Willms. p. 1. Bagshaiv v. Spencer, 2 Atk. 570-5. S. C. 1 Coll. Juricl 389, 390. Goodright v. Wright, 2 W. Black. 1010. Afarwoocl v. Dan-el, E. T. Harclw. 91. Cholmondeley v. Clinton, 2 Meriv. 171. S. C. 2 Jac. & Walk. 1. 2 Barn. & Aid. 625, and the cases cited in the note to Lisle v. Gray, ante, p. 462. 1 Fonb. Treat, of Eq. 428. 2 Fonb. Treat, of Eq. 72-3, 5th edit. Fearne's Cont. Eem. 209-212, 7th edit. Hargr. Co. Lit. 24 b. n. 3. 8 Viner, tit. Devise, U. b. W. b. 14 Viner, tit. Heir, G. 3. 1FRBBKAS.474. IN BANCO REGIS 355 ought to be granted to persona able to execute the place; but ministerial offices might be granted in reversion; for there, if the person who is the grantee be not capable, he may constitute a deputy who is ; and therefore in this case he held, that though this grant was void as to the stewardship of the court-leet, yet it may be good as to the stewardship of the court-baron; for in the court-baron the steward is only a minister, and the suitors are the judges; but in the leet the steward is judge. And this may be good for one, though it...
To continue reading
Request your trial