Lock against Norborne
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 87 E.R. 91
IN THE COURT KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS, EXCHEQUER.
See Doe d. Foster v. Earl of Derby, 1834, 1 A. & E. 790.
case 96. lock against norbokne. [See Doe d. Foster v. Earl of Derby, 1834, 1 A. & E. 790.] Verdict shall only be given in evidence amongst privies.-1 Ld. Ray. 730. Hard. 462, 472. Yelv. 22. Hob. 53. Garth. 181. 1 Vem. 413. Free. Ch. 212. Gilb. E. R. 2. 10 Mod. 292. 12 Mod. 319, 339. Bull. N. P. 232. 2 Stra. 1151. 2 Ld. Ray. 1292. 1 Brown's Gas. in Parl. 11. Upon a trial at Bar in ejectment for lands in Wiltshire, the case was thus: Mary Philpot, in the year 1678, made a settlement by lease and release to herself for life; then to trustees to support contingent remainders ; then to her first, second, and third son, in tail male, &c.; then to Thomas Arundel in tail male, with divers remainders over. It was objected at the trial, that she had no power to make such settlement, because in the year 1676 her husband had [142] settled the lands in question upon her for life, and upon the issue of his body, &c. and for want of such issue, then upon George Philpot in tail male, with several remainders over, the remainder to Mary Philpot in fee, proviso that upon the tender of a guinea to George Philpot by the said Mary, the limitations as to him should be void. George Philpot having afterwards made a lease of this land, to try the title, the trustees brought an ejectment; but because the tender of the guinea could not be proved, there was a verdict for the defendant. (b) See the Year Book 10 Hen. 7, pi. 24. 3 Inst. 230, and Hind's case, 4 Co. 70. (c) Dyer, 220. 12 Co. 124.-See also 2 Inst. 511. 2 Leon. 127. 3 Com. Dig. "Fine" (E. 7). Shepherd's Touch. 3. 2 Ld. Raym. 850. (d) Cro. Jac. 11. Yelv. 33.-See also 1 Roll. Abr. 717. 2 Bac. Abr. 219, 538. 1 Wils. 43. 1 Term Rep. 240. 92 HILARY TERM, 3 JAC. 2. IN B. R. 3 MOD. 143. And now Mr. Philpot would have given that verdict in evidence at this trial: But was not suffered by the Court; for if one man has a title to several lands, and he bring ejectments against several defendants, and recover against one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kirkwood v Lloyd
...Leading Cases, 1st ed., vol. 2, p. 439, et seq. Gaunt v. WainmanENR 3 Bing. N. C. 69. Robinson's caseUNK 5 Rep. 32, b. Locke v. NorborneENR 3 Mod. 141 R. v. Hebden And. 389. The Earl of DerbyENR 1 Ad. & El. 783. Keely v. Bodkin 5 Law Rec. N. S. 224. Sausse & ScullyENR Sau. & Sc. 211. Finch ......
-
Clerke against Rowell and Phillips
...[10] case 31. clerke against rowell and phillips. A verdict in one ejectment cannot be given in evidence on the trial of another.-See 3 Mod. 141. 5 Mod. 386. 10 Mod. 292. 12 Mod. 319, 339. Stra, 1151. Ld. Eaym. 1292. Bull. N. P. 232, and Gilbert's Law of Evid. Lofft's Edit. 35. An entry in ......
-
Ball v Cock
...Dyer, 220. 5 Co. 37. Cro. Eliz. 469.-See also 2 Jones, 181. Ray 462. Skin. 343. 2 Lev. 127 ; and the case of Watts v. BirMt, 2 Wils. 115. 3 MOD. 141. MICHAELMAS TERM, 3 JAC. 2. IN B. R. 91 it is against the record, which is placita terrce irrotulat. de termino Sanctce Trinitatis anno primo ......
-
Doe dem. Thomas Foster against The Earl of Derby
...discharged. Taunton and. Williams Js. concurred. Kule discharged (J)8. (b)1 12 Mod. 343, as Clarges v. Sherwin. (Vf See Lock v. Norborne, 3 Mod. 141. (6)8 The present Earl of Derby afterwards brought another ejectment against Thomas Foster for the premises claimed in the above action, layin......