Lawton v Ward
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 946
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
See Allan v. Gomme, 1840, 11 A. & E. 770; Finch v. Great Western Railway Company, 1879, 5 Ex. D. 258.
[75] easter term, 8 will. 3, C. B. Sir George Treby, Chief Justice. Sir Edward Nevill, Sir John Powell, Sir John Powell of Gloucester, Justices. lawton vers. ward.! [See Allan v. Gomme, 1840, 11 A. & E. 770; Finch v. Great Western Railway Company, IK.#.3(,i. 1879, 5 Ex. D. 258.] Pleadings. Lutw. Ill, vol. 3, 85. Under a right of way over a close to a particular place, a man cannot justify going beyond that place. S. C. Lutw. 114. See 1 Roll. Abr. 391, pi. 1, 2. Therefore if a defendant justifies passing along a private way under a right of way to a close called A. the plaintiff, may reply that he went beyond A. S. C. Lutw. 114. In an action for spoiling plaintiff's way with defendant's carriages, the defendant may justify going along the way with the carriages of a third person, having a right to go along the way, S. C. Lutw. 114. A man may prescribe for a way in himself and all those whose estate he has, without shewing that the way is appurtenant to his estate. And if he states that he was seised of two closes, and that he and all those &c. had a right of way, " tanquam ad tenementa spectantem," the Court will reject the words " tanquam ad tenementa spectantem," as surplusage. Action upon the case for spoiling his way with carts and carriages. The plaintiff declares, that he was seised of a close called L. and of another close called B. contiguously adjoining, and that he and all those, &c. time whereof, &c. had a cart way from the high road between F. and W. to L. tanquam ad tenement, spectantem, and that the defendant cum carucis et carriagiis suis had made the way so founderous, &c. ad damnum, &c. The defendant pleads, that W. W. was seised in fee of a close called C. and that he and all those, &c. time whereof, &c. had a way in the same way to his 1LD.RAYM.76. EASTER TERM, 8 WILL. 3 947 close of C. and the defendant drove the carts, &e. as servant to W. to the close called C. &c. The plaintiff replies, and confesses the prescription of the defendant, &c. but says, that he drove the carts to C. and also farther to D. &c. The defendant rejoins, that forasmuch as the plaintiff has confessed, that the way did not belong only to him, but also to W. his master, he might use it as he pleased, &c. The plaintiff demurs. And adjudged for him by the whole...
To continue reading
Request your trial