John Dennett against John Grover, John Steel, and John Edwards
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 February 1739 |
| Date | 06 February 1739 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 125 E.R. 1128
Common Pleas Division
1128 DENNETT O. GROVER WILLES, 196. I was clearly of opinion for the plaintiffs as to both points, though Bootle Serjt. for the plaintiffs gave up one of them. 1st, I admitted it to be good law that a man may seize as well as distrain for heriot service. But I was of opinion that these could not be considered as heriots, because heriots are services and part of the tenure ; and since the Statute of Quia Emptores Terrarum no tenures can be created or heriots reserved. It must be considered thereforeoanly in the present case as the reservation of a rent or an agreement to pay a certain thing; and consequently if a rent, it must be certain what that rent is, and there must be the same certainty if it be considered as an agreement to pay or deliver any thing. Now the word ' heriot ' has no certain signification : but the meaning of it must always be determined by the custom (a)1 of the manor, which can have no operation in the present case. If it has any certain signification, it means (as has been insisted) the best animal ; and if so, for that reason likewise, this seizure of dead goods cannot be justified. 2dly, I was of opinion likewise that the defendants could not seize the things in question, even though the reservation had been certain enough. 1. If it be considered as a rent, no one can seize a thing reserved as a rent, but must either distrait, for it or bring an action. 2. If it be considered as an agreement to pay or deliver any thing, no one can seize upon such agreement, but must bring his action upon the agreement if it be not performed. Mr. J. FORTESCUE ALAND was of the same opinion. And he said that heriot' was originally derived from ' here,' which in Saxon signifies an army, and 'gent' which [195] signifies provision (a)5; and that the reservation was originally of something proper for an army. And he exploded the notion that heriot was derived from heir. Mr. J. Wm. FORTESOUE was of the same opinion ; adding that he was always of this opinion both at the trial and when the case was spoken to before him. After we had delivered our opinions, Hayward Serjt. for the defendants insisted much to have it spoken to again ; but, thinking it to be a very clear case, we would not permit it. So we gave judgment for the plaintiffs according to the rule." JOHN DENNETT against JOHN GROVER, JOHN STEEL, AND JOHN EDWARDS. H. 13 Geo. 2. Wednesday, Feb. 6th, 1739, 40. If A. license B. to enter hie house to sell goods, B. may take assistants if necessary for the purpose of selling the goods. And if it be pleaded that B. and also C. and D. his servants and by his command entered for that purpose, and necessarily continued there so long, it will be understood that it was necessary for them...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood v Leadbitter
...nom. Plumer v. WM, Noy, 98), Ilonkins v. Bobbins (2 Ventr. 123, 163), Bradley v. Gill (1 Lutw. 69), Wood v. ia&e (Sayer, 3), ejwi v. Grow (Willes, 195), Mayor of Northampton v. Ward (1 Wils. 107; 2 Str. 1238), Buckmdge v. Ingram (2 Vea. jun. 652), Fentiman v. Smith (4 East, 107), Winter v. ......