Paine v Partrich

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1741
Date01 January 1741
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 90 E.R. 715

IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH

Paine
and
Partrich

[191] de term. sanct. thin. 3 wille. & marle. in B. R. paine versus partrigh. Pasch. 2 W. & M. B. R. Rot. 43. 3 Mod. 289. 1 Salk. 12, S. C. 2 Salk. 718, S. C. Case will not lie against the defendant for not keeping a ferry-boat where he had built a bridge to pass over the river. 1 Show. 243, 255, S. C. Comb. 180, S. C. 1 Dan. 199, p. 32. 1 Salk. 16. 3 Leon. 41. Hob. 86. C Co. 60. 1 Rol. Rep. 32. 8 Ed. 4, 18. Bro. tit. Customs, pi. 46. Moor 108. Cro. El. 664. 5 Co. 104. Yelv. 163. 2 Cro. 555, 557. Cro. Car. 419. Co. Lit. 110 b. 1 Rol. Rep. 216. Cro. El. 441. Cro. Car. 132, 167. Davis 57. F. N. B. 94. 22 H. 6, 12. 2 Jones 157. Vaugh. 341. Case, &c. in which the plaintiff declared, that the vill of Littleport in the isle of Ely was an antient vill, time out of mind, and for all that time within the said vill there had been an ancient river called Wilney River, and an antient passage over the same to the north-east side of the said vill, pro transitu & transportatione subditorum hujus regni Anglue trans & ultra rivum ilium transire volen. from a place called Ferry-Lane to a place called Adventurous Bank, on the other side of the river antrorsum sive retrorsum ad eorum libitum for the passage of horses, &c. and that the passage aforesaid, for all the time aforesaid, to such a day had been in a ferryboat maintained by the proprietors and occupiers of the passage, and that they and the keepers thereof had, for all the time aforesaid, used to receive of all subjects passing over the said river (other than of the inhabitants of Littleport, dwelling in the undent messuages or cottages there) reasonable rates for toll, (viz.) one half-peny for a man and horse ; and whereas within the said vill there was an antient custom, time out of mind, that every inhabitant of the said vill in any antient messuage or cottage there abiding habuer. & habere consuever. a toto tempore prae-[192]-dicto libertatem transeundi the aforesaid river at the said passage pro seipsis equis, &c. ad libitum suum sine aliqua solutione quacunq; cumq; etiam the plaintiff is an inhabitant, * Hob. 205. 2 Cro. 667. 3 Cro. 628, 836. Stat. 3 Ed. 1, cap. 38. Register 98. F. N. B. 45 F. 1 Saund. 221. 1 Sid. 463. 4 Rep. 14 b. Keilway 106 a. 10 Rep. the case of The Marshahea. Fitz. Abr. Estoppel, 18. 7 H. 6, 45. 1 Vent. 369, Hudson versus Cook. Trin. 27 Car. 2, Smith versus Fuller. 716 TERM. S. TRIN. 3 W. AND M. B. R...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Brodie v Singleton Shire Council
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 31 May 2001
    ...Maynell v Saltmarsh (1664) 1 Keb 847 [ 83 ER 1278]; Hart v Basset (1681) Jones T 156 [ 84 ER 1194]; Paine v Partrich (1691) Carth 191 [ 90 ER 715]; Iveson v Moore (1699) 1 Ld Raym 486 [ 91 ER 1224]; Rose v Miles (1815) 4 M & S 101 [ 105 ER 773]; Chichester v Lethbridge (1738) Willes 71 [ 12......
  • The Mayor and Burgesses of Lyme Regis, - Plaintiffs (in Error); Henry Hoste Henley, Esq., - Defendant (in Error)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 1 January 1834
    ...are satisfactorily confirmed by that which has just been delivered. The doubt upon the matter * Cowp. 86. tHardr. 162. | Show. 255.; Carth. 191. 2 B. & C. 302. 1106 STALEY V. KING [1834] VIII BLIGH N. S. of pleading which has been entertained by two of the learned judges, does not materiall......
  • Rose and Others against Miles
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 2 May 1815
    ...to inconvenience and expence, all which is consequential, and must (a)1 Willes, 71. See also Co. Lit. 56 a. (a)2 1 Esp. N. P. C. 148. (b) Carth. 191. 774 LORD DUNCAN V. MITCHELL 4M.&S. 101. be common to every one who before used the way, and there is no direct damage to his property or pers......
  • Richard Herring v The Metropolitan Board of Works
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Common Pleas
    • 27 June 1865
    ...2( ; , 9 J. B. Moore, 48'J, the plaintiff was prevented by the defendant's obstruction from carrying bis coals. In Paine v. Part-rich, Carth. 191, the plaintiff's damage was not actionable, and the example of actionable damage is put thus : -"A particular damage, to maintain the action, oug......
  • 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