Livett v Wilson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 May 1825 |
| Date | 16 May 1825 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 457
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 10 Moore, 439; 3 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 186. Referred to, Angus v. Dalton, 1878-81, 4 Q. B. D. 172; 6 App. Cas. 740.
[115] livett v. wilson. May 16, 1825. [S. C. 10 Moore, 439; 3 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 186. Referred to, Angus v. Dalian, 1878-81, 4 Q. B. D. 172; 6 App. Gas. 740.] Defendant pleaded a grant of right of way by deed, subsequently lost. Plaintiff, in his replication, traversed the grant. At the trial, there being conflicting testimony C. P. viil-15* 458 LIVETT V.WILSON 3 BIHG. 116. as to the uninterrupted user of the way, the Judge directed the jury, that if upon this issue they thought Defendant had exercised the right of way uninterruptedly foe more than twenty years by virtue of a deed, they would find for the Defendant; if they thought there had been no way granted by deed, they would find for the Plaintiff:-Held, that this direction was right. Trespass for breaking and entering the Plaintiff's close, called the yard, in the parish of St. Andrew, in the town of Cambridge. The Defendant pleaded that before and at the said several times when, &c., he was seized in his demesne as of fee of and in a certain messuage and yard in the parish aforesaid, and that long before any of the several times, when, &c., to wit, on the 1st January 1764, at the parish aforesaid, by a certain deed then and there made between John Waterfield, the then owner of the said close of Plaintiff called the yard, and who was then seized thereof in his demesne as of fee, and Thomas Blanks and Mary his wife, who were then seized in their demesne as of fee, in right of the said Mary, of and in the messuage and yard, now of Defendant, and whose estates therein he, Defendant, now hath, but which said last-mentioned deed hath since been lost and destroyed by accident, and, therefore, cannot be produced to the Court here, and the date whereof is for that reason wholly unknown to Defendant, the said John Waterfield so being owner of the said close, in which, &c., did grant to the said Thomas Blanks and Mary his wife, in right of the said Mary, so then being the owner of the said messuage and yard, now of Defendant, and to the heirs and assigns of the said Mary as aforesaid, a certain way from the public highway or street called the Petty Gary, into, through, over, and along the said close called the yard, in which, &c., unto and into the said messuage and yard of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tennent and Others v Neil
...WalshUNK 1 Ir. C. L. R. 311. Lyon v. ReidENR 13 M. & W. 285. Hilary v. Walker 12 Ves. 239. Doe v. Prosser Cowp. 217. Levitt v. WilsonENR 3 Bing. 115. Doe and Hammond v. CookENR 6 Bing. 174. Little v. WingfieldUNK 11 Ir. C. L. R. 63. Fellows v. Clay 4 Q. B. 313. Deeble v. LinehanUNK 12 Ir. C......
-
Acheson v Henry
...L. C. 593. Marshall v. The Ulleswater Steam Navigation CompanyENR 3. B. & S. 132. Hayes v. Bridges Ir. Term Rep. 390. Livett v. WilsonENR 3 Bing. 115. Wakley v. FroggattENR 2 H. & C. 669. Pleading Fishery Prescriptive rights Statement of title Covnant Equitable defence. 486 THE IRISH REPORT......
-
Little and Another, in Error, v Wingfield and Others
...& pul. 472. The Mayor of Hull v. Horner Cow. 102. Eldridge v. Knott Cow. 214. Bright v. WalkerENR 1 Cr., M. & R. 211. Livitt v. WilsonENR 3 Bing. 115; S. C., 10 B. M. 439. Doe v. ReadENR 5 B. & Al. 232. Doe v. CookeENR 6 Bing. 179. Attorney-General v. Ewelme HospitalENR 17 Beav. 366. Blewit......
-
Beauman v Kinsella
...Hendy v. StephensonENR 10 East, 55. Blewett v. TregonningENR 3 Ad. & El. 554. Bright v. WalkerENR 1 Cr., M. & R. 222. Livett v. WilsonENR 3 Bing. 115. The Attorney-General v. Ewelme HospitalENR 17 Beav. 366; S. C., 22 L. J., Ch., 846. Hammond v. CookeENR 6 Bing. 174. Gray v. BondENR 5 Moo. ......