Kent v Kent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 93 E.R. 975
COURTS OF CHANCERY, KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
kent vers. kent. Where there are two tenants to the writ in dower and one dies after judgment for damages, and his heir and the other bring error, the whole of the original damages should be recovered against the survivor. But the value from the time of the judgment to the affirmance cannot be recovered against the surviving plaintiff in error only. And the Court cannot compute such value after the rate of the damages found by the first jury, but should award a writ of enquiry. But although such judgment is for the benefit of the heir of the deceased tenant, yet he may join in the writ and assign it for error. Gas. temp. Hardw. 50. 2 Barn. B. R. 357, 386, 441. 2 Kely. 194, cited And. 154, S. C. This was a writ of error from Ireland upon a special verdict in dower, arising upon the construction of an Irish Act of Parliament of no consequence to be understood here : but besides the argument upon the merits, there were several exceptions taken to the record, all of which (except one) were ^over-ruled. And as to that which was allowed, it may be shortly stated by way of case. There were two tenants to the writ of dower, Edward May and Robert Kent: the demandant has judgment to recover her dower and 1581. for damages and costs. They both bring error, and assign errors, and then Edward May dies, and there is judgment to abate the writ of error. After which Kent and Robert May the heir of Edward bring a new writ of error; and the judgment is affirmed in toto; and a writ of seisin awarded for the dower against both, and execution for the damages and costs againat Kent only, and also for the value from the time of the judgment according to the former computation. To this exception was taken, that Kent alone ought not to be charged; for the statute subjects, not only the tenant in the action, but also those who join in the writ of error, as being bound by the judgment. And after consideration the Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the Court upon this point. We are all of opinion that as to damages from the time of the judgment in C. B. to the affirmance in B. R. in Ireland, the judgment is erroneous, and ought to be reversed. We have no doubt but that the King's Bench might award damages from the time of the judgment to the affirmance. But the objections are to the manner of doing it, and thay are two. 1. That they have computed it according...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kent and Kent
...original damages were awarded against the surviving tenant, but also the value from the time of the first judgment to the affirmance. See 2 Str. 971, S. G. where this distinction is more apparent. 32 TRINITY TERM, 7 GEO. II. CAL T. HARD. 53. dower be affirmed, and the other part of the judg......