King v Jones and Rowland, Executors of Richard Griffith
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 April 1814 |
| Date | 28 April 1814 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 128 E.R. 751
Common Pleas Division
S. C. 1 Marsh. 107. Affirmed in error, 4 M. & S. 188. Distinguished, Ker v. Ker, 1869, Ir. R. 4 Eq. 23. Referred to, Spoor v. Green, 1874, L. R 9 Ex. 117. Applied, In re Durham, 1887, 57 L. T. 167. Discussed, In re Jones, [1893] 2 Ch. 471.
TI.UNT.41& KING V. JONES 751 were not warranted in killing it ; otherwise a magistrate might take on himself to shoot- the dogs of all unqualified persons, without any adjudication whatever. GIBES C. J, There is no doubt but that the magistrate had a right to take his dog to his own use ; and having a right to take the dog, after he had taken it, nothing that he could do with it could be an injury to the former owner. An information is laid under this statute for killing game. I take it for granted, it appeared in the course of the examination that the Plaintiff kept a dog ; thereupon the dog was sent for, the man is convicted, and, afterwards some conversation takes place between the justice and his clerk ; the clerk orders the dog to he killed ; there can be no doubt whatever with what intention the dog was sent for, with the intent of seizing it by the justice as forfeited. This then was a sufficient act of taking possession, and it would be idle to grant you a rule nisi, for it is evident that you could not sustain it. Rule refused. [418] SING v. JONES AND ROWLAND, Executors of Richard Griffith. April 28, 1814. [S. C. 1 Marsh. 107. Affirmed in error, 4 M. & S. 188. Distinguished, Ker v. Ker, 1869, Ir. R. 4 Eq. 23. Referred to, Spoor v. Green, 1874, L. R 9 Ex, 117. Applied, In re Durham, 1887, 57 L. T. 167. Discussed, In re Jones, [1893] 2 Ch. 471.] A covenant to do all lawful and reasonable acts for further assurance includes the levying a fine, though not named.So, the satisfying judgments,Upon a covenant with A. and his heirs to do all lawful and reasonable acts for further assurance upon request, and a request made by the purchaser in his life to levy a fine, and neglect so to do, the ancestor not being evicted in his life, hut the heir being evicted afterwards, the heir may maintain an action upon the request of the ancestor, and refusal made to him.Because the ultimate damage had not accrued in the life of the ancestor.But the ancestor, if he had pleased, might also have sued. Per Mansfield C. J.Semb. That a request to levy a fine at the expence of the conusee, includes a virtual promise to pay the costs of a writ of dedimus potestatem for taking the acknowledgment at the conusor's home, he not living in town. This was an action of covenant brought by the heir of a vendee against the executors of a vendor, fur the breach of a covenant for further assurance. The Plaintiff declared upon an indenture made the 7th of October 1794, between T. Worge of the first part, Richard Griffith and Mary his wife of the second part, and John King (deceased) of the third part, whereby, in consideration of 3001. paid by j. King, at the request of R. Griffith and Mary his wife, to T. Worge, in discharge of a mortgage debt of 3001. and of 8551. paid to R. Griffith and wife, J. Worge, with the consent and approbation, and by the direction and appointment of Griffith and wife, did bargain, sell, assign, alien, release, and confirm to J. King deceased, and his heirs and assigns, a messuage and hereditaments in the parish of Beachampton, Bucks, to hold the same unto, and to the only use, of J. King, his heirs arid assigns, and Griffith, for himself and wife, and for their and each of their heirs, executors, amid administrators, did thereby covenant with J. King (deceased), his heirs and assigns, (amongst other things,) that Griffith and wife, and their heirs, and all and every other person and persons having, or lawfully claiming, or who should or might at any time thereafter have or lawfully claim any estate, right, trust, or interest, at law or in equity, of, in, to, or out of the messuage and premises thereby granted and released, or any part thereof, should and would, from [419] time to time, and at all times thereafter, upon every reasonable request, and at the proper costs and charges in the law of J. King, his heirs and assigns, make, do, and execute, or cause and procure to be made, done, and executed, all and every such further and other lawful and reasonable act and acts, thing and things, conveyances and assurances in the law whatsoever, for the further, better, more perfect-, and absolute granting, conveying, and assuring of the premises unto, and to the use of, the deceased J. King, his heirs and assigns for ever : as by him, his heirs or assigns, or his or their counsel, should he reasonably devised, or advised and required, so as such further assurances should contain in them no further or other warranty or covenants, than against the person or persons, and his arid their heirs, who should make or do the same; and so as the party or parties who should be so 752 KING V. JON ES 5 TAUNT. 420. requested to make such further assurance, should not be compelled, or compellable, for the making or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re King, decd
...but the executor could not. 15Those propositions can be derived from a perusal of Kingdon v. Nottle (1813) 1M.& S. 354, 4M.& S.53, King v. Jones (1814)5 Taunt. 418 at p. 428, 4M. & S. 188, and Raymond v. Fitch (1835) 2 Cr. M.& R. at pp. 16Such being the position of the heir or devisee, it a......
-
Doyle v Hort
...S.) 96. Smith v. ComptonENR 3 B. & Ad. 407. Spedding v. NevellELR L. R. 4 C. P. 212. Bunny v. HopkinsonENR 27 Beav. 565. King v. JonesENR 5 Taunt. 418, 428. Kingdon v. NottleENR 1 M. & S. 355. Williams v. BurrellENR 1 C. B. 402. Lock v. FurzeENRELR 19 C. B. (N. S.) 96; affirmed in Exchequer......
-
Wotton v Hele
...this covenant will lie at the suit of the devisee of the original covenantee, see 4 M. & S. 53, Kingdon v. Nottle: and by the heir, see 5 Taunt. 418, King v. Jones. 1 Marsh. 107, S. C. 4 M. & S. 188, S. C. on error. [These cases have established that where there are covenants real, that is,......
-
Ward v Audland, sued as Executor of Whitelock
...correct.] In Lunn v. (b}1 See QBythewood & Jarman's Conveyancing, by Sweet, 3rd edit. 399 ; Betmet's ease,\Cro. Eliz. 9 ; King v. Jones, 5 Taunt. 418; Graham v. Stone, 1 East, 632; Warn v. Bickfonl, 9 Price, 4:3. (5)2 Loeschman v. Machin, 2 Stark. N. P. C. 311. Acted on in 1 C. B. 672. (c) ......