Johnson v Mason
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 289
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS.
[89] Monday, Feb. 17th. johnson v mason. (A party who has executed a deed, shall not be permitted to acknowledge it : it must be proved by the subscribing witness When a party executes a deed under a power of attorney, the power of attorney ought to be produced Where a tenant has, on coming into possession under an assignment, had notice that the lease was held under any particular person, to whom the former tenant has paid rent, the title of this person cannot be contested in an action of replevin ) This was an action of replevin The defendant made conusance , hist, under Lord Stamford , and secondly, under one Ballard, for rent arrear The premises for the rent, of which the distress had been made, had been limited to a Mrs. Doherty for life, remainder over This remainder over had vested by purchase m Lord Stamford Mrs Doherty, the tenant for life, was dead , so that at the time of the distress taken, Lord Stamford was seised in fee in possession. Mrs. Doherty in her lifetime having no power to make leases, had nevertheless demised the premises by lease to Ballard, for twenty-one years She died before the lease expired , and Ballard paid his rent to Lord Stamford, and continued in possession, though his lease was void , and soon after, in consideration of 500 paid to him by the plaintiff, let to him the premises for the unexpired remainder of the twenty-one years. Mrs. Ballard, wife to Ballard, the lessee, was called as a witness. Erskme, for the plaintiff, produced the deed by which her husband had demised the premises to the plaintiff, which she had executed as attorney for her husband, and asked her if she had so executed it ? Gariow, for the defendant, objected to the question, until the deed was proved by the subscribing witness. [90] Lord Kenyon said, that Lord Mansfield had once by surprise allowed a man to acknowledge his own deed in Court, without calling the subscribing witness, but that he afterwards changed his opinion, and held that a party should not be allowed to acknowledge his deed, until it had been proved by the subscribing witness. The deed was then proved in that manner Erskine was then proceeding to ask her some questions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nagle v Shea
...2 Camp. 94. Gillet v.Abbott 7 A. & E. 783. Scott v. ClareENR 3 Camp. 236. Summersett v. AdamsonENR 1 Bing. 73. Mason v. JohnstonENR 1 Esp. 89. Smithwick v. BearyUNK 3 Ir. Jur. (O. S.) 333; 1 Ir. C. L. R. 344. Vacher v. CocksENR 1 B. & Ad. 145, 147. Davison and Others v.GentENR 1 H. & N. 744......
-
Standen v Standen and Others
...p-irty who has executed a deed shall not be permitted to acknowledge it, but it must be proved by the subscribing witness, Johnson v Mason, 1 Esp 89 , R v Harnngworth, 4 M and S. 350 In Pearce v Hooper, 3 Taunt 60, the Court of C P held, that if a defendant calls on a plaintiff to produce o......
-
FRENCH v COPINGER. [Chancery.]
...Wright v. Pilling Pr. Ch. 494. Johnston and Kinder v. The Midland Great Western Railway CompanyUNK 5 Ir. Ch. Rep. 264. Johnston v. MasonENR 1 Esp. 89. Abbott v. PlumbENR 1 Doug. 216. Whyman v. GarthENR 8 Ex. 803. Rex v. HarringworthENR 4 M. & S. 350. Carpenter v. BullerENR 8 M. & W. 209. Le......
-
Laythoarp v Bryant
...the acknowledgment of the lessor that he had executed it, would not have dispensed with the regular proof of execution : Johnson v. Mason (1 Esp. 89). In Vacher v. Cocks (1 B. & Adol. 145), it was held that a party producing, at the trial of a cause, a deed which had been some months in his......