Mun v Baylies
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1826 |
| Date | 01 January 1826 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 89 E.R. 253
THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
case 423. mun v. baylies. Triii. 23, Car. 2, Rot. 1012. S. C. 1 Vent. 244. 2 Lev. 61. 3 Keb. 46, 107, 193. Death is not such a non residence as will avoid a lease by a parson. A reservation of rent in a parson's lease, payable on the quarter days, or within 20 days after, is good, and binds the successor; and the tenant shall not have 20 days after the last quarter day of the term. A concurrent lease by a parson to commence at a future day, is a lease in reversion, and void against the successor. One Cooper was Vicar of Cranbridge, a market-town in Kent, and made a lease of the houses in question for three years, and afterwards, after the expiration of one of those three years, he made another lease about the seventeenth of September, to begin at Michaelmas following, which lease was confirmed by the patron and Ordinary (a) According to the report of Keble, the Court conceived that " entering per viam apertam inclosure may be broke." See further on this point, 1 Eol. Ab. 671. Anony. Comb. 17. Bmvning v. Dann, R. T. Hardw. 168. Viner, Distress, E. 2, pi. 6. Gould v. Bradstock, 4 Taunt. 562. 2 Saund. 284 a. note (2). (a) S. C. 2 Hale P. C. 155. (b) S. P. in 2 Bale's H. P. C. p. 155, and 2 Hawk. P. C. 71. Com. Dig. Leet. G. 2. Scroggs on Courts, p. 85, 4th edit. Yet it seems that although no traverse whatever can be tried by the leet, the presentment is traversable upon removal into the King's Bench by certiorari, or it may be disputed in an action. Mattftews v. Carey, Carth. 73. 6 Viner Ab. 597, pi. 4. E. v. Boupell, Cowp. 458. After the fine has been estreated and paid, no certiorari will be granted. M. v. Ritson (or Heaton), 2 Term Kep. 184. See further on traversing presentments by the leet, Finch's Law, 386. Kitch. p. 84, 2d edit. Dyer, 13 b. pi. 64, and particularly Lambard's Eiren- archa, p. 542-3, ed. 1619, and Callis on Sewers, p. 213-7. The leet jury is said to be in the nature of a grand jury, per Abbott, C.J. in B. v. Joliffe, 2 Barn. & Cress, p. 58, 254 DE TERM. S. TRIN. 1673 1 FREEMAN, 341. (under which lease the defendant claims) and then he dies, and one Buck was his successor, who made a lease of the same houses to the plaintiff. The rent reserved by Cooper upon the lease for twenty-one years, was payable quarterly during the term, or within twenty clays after every quarter-clay. This case wag argued by all the Judges of the King's Bench, and they all agreed that judgment should be for the plaintiff. There are three points made in the case. 1. Whether the death of Cooper should be said a non-residence within the statute of 13 Eliz. 20, to avoid his lease. And they all agreed, that it should not. For the statute of 13 Eliz. 20...
To continue reading
Request your trial