Morris against Dimes
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 June 1834 |
| Date | 03 June 1834 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 1357
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 3 N. & M. 671; 3 L. J. K. B. 170. Not applied, Brecon Markets Company v. Neath and Brecon Railway, 1872-73, L. R. 7 C. P. 568; L. R. 8 C. P. 157. Adopted, Beauchamp v. Winn, 1873, L. R. 6 H. L. 256. Referred to, Sowerby v. Smith, 1874, L. R. 9 C. P. 545.
[654] morris against dimes. Tuesday, June 3d, 1834. A grant by the King of free warren in land, of which he is seised in fee, is a grant of free warren in gross. Therefore, where defendant, in trespass, pleaded such a grant of free warren to P., and deduced title from P. to F., and pleaded a conveyance by F. of the said free warren to the defendant; it was held, that the plea was not sustained by proof of a conveyance from F. of a manor, of which the land in question was copyhold, with all and singular fisheries and right of fishing, fowling, hawking, hunting, and shooting; and all profits, royalties, &c. and all other rights, liberties, franchises, jurisdictions, privileges, commodities, advantages, hereditaments, and appurtenances whatsoever to the said manor belonging, or in anywise appertaining thereto, or at any time occupied or enjoyed therewith, or reputed part, parcel, or member thereof, or granted by the King to P. as appurtenant to the manor. And this, though it was shewn that the King, at the time of the grant to P., was lord of the manor, and held certain demesne lands in fee, and granted the free warren in both the demesne and other lands of the manor. Quaere, whether the words of the conveyance by F. would have conveyed a free warren appurtenant to the manor 1 [S. C. 3 N. & M. 671; 3 L. J. K. B. 170. Not applied, Brecon Markets Company v. Neath and Brecon Railway, 1872-73, L. E. 7 C. P. 568; L. E. 8 C. P. 157. Adopted, Beaucham/p v. Winn, 1873, L. E. 6 H. L. 256. Referred to, Sowerby v. Smith, 1874, L. E. 9 C. P. 545.] Trespass. On the trial before Bayley B., at the Hertford Summer Assizes 1833, a verdict was found for the plaintiff upon some of the issues, and for the defendant upon others, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following case:- The first count of the declaration charged the defendant with breaking and entering a close of the plaintiff, called Great Wood Field, (describing the boundaries), situate in the parish of Eickmansworth, in the county of Hertford, and five other closes, not named, of the plaintiff, in the parish and county aforesaid, and hunting, searching for, and killing game therein, and seizing, and carrying away the same, and converting it to his own use. The second count charged similar trespasses in another close of the plaintiff, describing the boundaries. The third count was for seizing and taking away dead game, the property of the plaintiff. By first plea, after describing and naming the five unnamed closes in the first count mentioned, the defendant pleaded, as to the whole of the trespasses complained of, that King Charles the First was seized in fee of the closes in which, &c., and that, being so seized [655] he, by letters patent, of the 5th of July 1628, granted to William Earl of Pembroke, Thomas Morgan, and John Thorogood, and the heirs and assigns of the said earl, that they and the heirs of the said earl might have, hold, and enjoy, on the said several closes, free warren, fowling, and hunting; and that the said earl was seized of the said free warren by virtue of that grant. The plea then deduced title to the said free warren down to the year 1818, when it alleged a devise of the same by Henry Fotherley Whitfield to John Forster and Thomas Deacon, by virtue whereof they became seised of the said free warren; and that they, on the 16th of June 1818, bargained and sold, and on the 17th of June, by a certain indenture of that date, released, the free warren over the close in which, &e., to Eobert Williams, William Williams, and Thomas Lane, and their heirs. The plea then deduced title from the three last-named parties to the defendant, who, under his right of free warren, justified the trespasses complained of. The second plea was in all respects 1358 MORKIS V. DIMES 1 AD. & E. 656. like the first, except that it throughout alleged the free warren to have been " granted " by the several deeds and assurances therein mentioned, instead of stating the same to have been " released," as in the former plea. The defendant pleaded seven other pleas to different parts of the declaration, alleging a prescriptive right of free warren. To the first and second pleas, the plaintiff, after protesting the seisin of King Charles the First, replied, that Forster and Deacon did not, by the indenture in the first plea in that behalf mentioned, release to R. Williams, W. Williams, and T. Lane the said free warren in and over the said closes in which, &c., in manner and form as in the first plea was alleged, and that they. did [656] not, by the said indenture in the second plea in that behalf mentioned, grant unto the said R. W., W. W., and T. L. the said free warren in and over, &c., in manner and form, &c.; and upon these traverses issue was joined. ; The plaintiff also traversed the prescriptive right claimed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edmund Francis Dayrell against Hoare, Cardwell, and Friday
...the particular circumstances ; but they did riot go so far as to determine upon its effect.] The authorities cited in Morris v. Dimes (1 A. & E. 654), shew that a free warren cannot be made, by grant, appurtenant to a manor. Com. Dig., tit. Appendant and Appurtenant, shews the same. Supposi......
-
Cundell and Another v Dawson
...of London and Westminster, or within twenty-five miles from the general (a) And see, as to sheriffs, rules, Johnson v. Brazier, clerk, 1 Ad. & E. 654, 3 N. & M. 654; Lewis v. Holding, 2 M. & G. 882, 3 Scott, N. B. 191; Melville v. Smark, 3 M. & G. 57, 3 Scott, N. E. 346 ; Brown v. Ludham, 6......
- Hodgson v McCreagh
-
Greathead v Morley and Others
...at the time that the act passed. That a right of free warren is not necessarily incident to a manor appears from Morris v. Dimes (1 A. & E. 654, 3 N. & M. 671.) Taunton J. there says, "The general words which occur are no more than such as are found in all conveyances of manors. Even the wo......
-
Legal and Reputed
...11 HL Cas 62, 11 ER 1254: see 7.5. 47 French’s Case (1576) 4 Co Rep 31a, 77 ER 960: see 5.6; 7.10. 48 Morris v Dimes (1834)1 Ad & E 654, 110 ER 1357: see 12.3; Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Navigation v Bradley [1910] 1 Ch 91: see 12.7. 49 Attorney General v Ewelme Hospital (1853) ......
-
General Words
...Canal Navigation v Bradley 25 (12.7) fishing rights were granted by Parliament to the 23 Bracton op cit f 243b. 24 (1834) 1 Ad & E 654, 110 ER 1357. 25 [1910] 1 Ch 91. lords of manors and owners of lands but the court held that they were not annexed and were held separately. In Attorney-Gen......
-
Table of Cases
...(1827) 1 Sim 280, 57 ER 582 20.5 Moore v Earl of Plymouth (1820) 7 Taunton 614, 129 ER 245 12.6 Morris v Dimes (1834) 1 Ad & E 654, 110 ER 1357 8.5, 9.4, 12.3, 12.7, 16.5, 16.7, 16.8, 21.2 Morris v Smith and Paget (1582) Cro Eliz 38, 78 ER 303 8.1, 8.3, 24.5 Musgrave v Forster (1871) LR 6 Q......
-
Franchises and Liberties
...Act 1996 Code of Practice (2nd Revision 2007) para 20. 22 See also Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s 29(5). 23 (1834) 1 Add & E 654, 110 ER 1357. 288 The Law of the Manor 16.6 COMMERCE AND ANIMALS There are many commercial franchises such as tolls of anchorage, passage, ferry and pontage con......