Knight v Cox
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 June 1856 |
| Date | 09 June 1856 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 139 E.R. 1523
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 25 L. J. C. P. 314.
knight v. Cox. June 9, 1856. .[C. 25 L. J, C. P. 314.] Payment of rent under a distress is not a conclusive admission of title in the distrainor, but may be rebutted by shewing that he never had any title.-The plaintiff claimed as executrix and devisee of the administratrix of one of three lessors, and shewed that rent had been paid by the defendant (the lessee) to her testatrix, and to herself, -on two occasions,nafter distress:-Held, that this prima facie case was answered ,by shewing that one of the other lessors was still living. This was an action for use and occupation, to which the defendant pleaded never indebted. The cause was tried before Willes, J., at the sittings in Middlesex after the last term. The facts which appeared in evidence were as follows :^The defendant became tenant of the premises in question under a lease which was granted to him on the 23rd of April, 1842, for th term of twenty-one years from the 25th of March then last, by William Beaufort Cullen, Edward Beaufort Cullen, and Elizabeth Cullen, at the yearly rent of 1001., payable quarterly. , William Beaufort Gullen, who had been in the A ustrian service, died in Transylvania on the 16th of August, 1848, unmarried, arid intestate; and letters of administration of his goods and chattels were duly granted to his mother, Mrs. Elizabeth Power Cullen, on the 8th of August, 1850. Edward Beaufort Cullen, it was proved, had gone to Sydney, and was, as appeared from a letter received from him, dated October, 1854, still living. Elizabeth Cullen died on the 27th of August, 1849. The plaintiff launched-her case by shewing that the rent of the premises in question had been regularly paid by the defendant to Edward Beaufort Cullen down to the [646] year 1850, and since then to Mrs. Elizabeth Power Cullen until her death; that she (the plaintiff) was sole devisee and executrix under the will-of Mrs. Cullen, which was proved in the Prerogative Court of: the Archbishop of Canterbury on the 16th of January, 1852; that, on the 15th of June, 1852, she distrained for the quarter's rent whieh became due on the 25th of March, which distress the defendant submitted to by paying the rent and expenses; and that, on the 22nd of November, 1855, she again distrained for a, quarter's rent of' the premises which became due at the preceding Michaelmas Day, and that the defendant paid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nixon, A Minor v and F. Darley, H. Monahan, and Others
...Ir. Ch. R. 1. Claridge v. Mackenzie4 M. & Gr. 143. Grosvenor v. WoodhouseENR1 Bing. 43. Rogers v. PitcherENR6 Taun. 202. Knight v. CoxENR18 C. B. 645. Percival v. DunneUNK9 Ir. C. L. R. 422. Doe and Thomas v. Field2 Dowl. Pr. C. 542. Dod d. Cates v. Summerville6 B. & Cr. 126. Rogers v. Pitc......
-
Tetley v Easton and Another
...be conducted in the same manner as in the case of an oral examination of an opposite party before a master under this act." (Under s. 51.) 18C.B.645. KNIGHT V. GOX 1523 especially which within your knowledge now are, or within the last three months have been, in use within fifty miles of Lo......