Packer v Welsted

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1657
Date01 January 1657
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 82 E.R. 1244

King's Bench Division

Packer
and
Welsted

See S. C. 2 Sid. 111 (with note).

[39] packer versus welsted. Trespas. [See S. C. 2 Sid. Ill (with note).] Extinguishment del chymin. Special verdict. Sont trois parcels de terre & le necessary & private chymin est hors del primer parcel al second & hors del deux primer parcels al tierce parcel. J. S. purchase touts ceux peels & puis alien deux primer de ceux peels al J. N. & le qre fuit, si il avera chymin sup lea deux primer peels a son tierce peel. Les jurors auxy trove que le alienat fuit p feoffment, & q la ne fuit ascun auter voy a vener al tre nient alien mes p le auter terre. Powes pur plaintiff. Jeo conceive q ascun choses sont inseperable del tre. Et ascun q poent estre sev1 come en nostre case q poet estre extinguish p unity del possession. 1. Ceux que sont inseperable & ne poent estre extinguish p unity del possession. Comeun gutter en quelewead ee accustom destre port 1 Car. Eo. 145. Pophams Rep. f. 126. Pur ceo q tiel custom dav* tiel gutter est surdantsur le terre. Et si sfir purchase terre terms en gavelkind ambideux ses fits inheriter, sicome le tre ad remain en les maines le tenant pur meame le reason come est a voier en 11 H. 7. 25. b. Et si home grant terre reservant un acre en le middle de c il a# en tiel cas chymin al ceo pur c q est sine qua res concessa non potest. 14 H. 8. 2. a. Co. 11. 52. 2. Ceux choses que sont easement poent estre destroy per unity del possession come en nostre cas. Le uniey del possession ad extinguish le chymin & c p ceux...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Doe, on the demise of Mitchinson, against Carter
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 23 November 1798
    ...1 Wight. 386. 3 M. & S. 353.] On the trial of this ejectment at the last assizes for Essex, before Mr. Justice (a) Vide Parker v. Welsted, 2 Sid. 39, 111. Sury v. Pigot, Poph. 166. Palm. 444. Latch, 153. Noy, 84. 3 Bulstr. 339, S. C. 8T.R.58. DOE V. CARTER 1265 Buller, a verdict was found f......
  • Pearson against Spencer
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the Queen's Bench
    • 9 July 1861
    ...Abr. 60, Graunts Z, pi. 17; Jorden v. Atwood (Owen, 121); Beaudeley v. Brook (Cro. Jae. 189); Oldfield's Case (Noy, 123); Parker v. Welsted 2 Sid. 39, 111), Morris v. Edgington (3 Taunt. 24); Holmes v. Gyring (2 Bing. 76); Barlow v. Rhodes (1 Cr. & M. 439); James v. Plant, in Error (4 A. & ......
  • Pinnington v Galland
    • United Kingdom
    • Exchequer
    • 6 July 1853
    ...a piece of land which is surrounded by land of the ven-[8]-dor, he grants a way as a necessary incident therewith " In Packet v WeUted (2 Sid. 39, 111), theie was a special verdict, fiading "that theie were three parcels of land, and the necessary and pnvdte way was out of the first parcel ......
  • Suffield v Brown
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 1 January 1864
    ...giving a benefit to the owner of the dominant tenement. Reference was also made to Beaudely v. Brook (Ibid. 189) ; Packer v. WelMed (2 Sid. 39, 111); Howton v. Frearsm (8 T. R. 50); Holmes v. Gming (2 Bing. 76); Proctor v. Hodgson (10 Exch. 824); Morris v. Edgington (3 Taunt. 24); Junes v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT