Parker v Kett
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 1338
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Referred to, Bridges v. Gannett, 1869, L. R. 4 C. P. 591; 5 C. P. 451.
parker vers. kett. [Eeferred to, Bridges v. Gannett, 1869, L. E. 4 C. P. 591; 5 C. P. 451.] S. C. Salk. 95. Holt 221. More at large 12 Mod. 466. The steward of a manor may authorize a man to take a surrender out of Court. S. C. Com. 84, and so may his deputy. S. C. Com. 84. Vide 1 Leon. 288. A deputy may do whatever his principal might have done. D. ace. post, 1582. Except make a deputy, and cannot be appointed with less power. Sed vide Cro. El. 48, pi. 2. But a deputation to do a particular act will make a man servant 1LD. RATM. 669. EASTER TERM, 13 WILL. 3 1339 pro hac vice. A deputy may act in his own name. S. C. 3 Salk. 124. D. cont. 12 Mod. 690. The acts of one who is a steward de facto though not de jure, are good. In ejectment brought for lands in Tresingham in Norfolk, on the demise of Charles Kett, the cause was tried before Holt Chief Justice of the King's Bench ; and he making some difficulty in the point of law arising upon the evidence, he reserved it as a point for his consideration, and afterwards gave order that it should be argued in B. R. to have the opinion of all the Judges of the said Court. And it was argued accordingly several times, by Mr. Williams and Mr. Weld of one side, and Mr. Broderick and Mr. Northey of the other side. And now the Chief Justice pronounced the opinion of the whole Court. The case was thus : Charles Kett, copyholder in fee of the lands in question, held of the manor of Reswick in Norfolk, made bis will, and thereby devised the lands in question to the defendant, Elizabeth, his wife, for her life, remainder to his son Charles the lessor of the plaintiff in tail, remainder to his wife in fee. Mr. Samuel Keck the Master in Chancery was constituted steward of this manor by patent, to exercise the said office by himself, or his sufficient deputy ; by virtue of which power Keck made Osman Clerke his deputy steward, and he had executed the said office many years. Charles Kett the father being sick, sent to desire Osman Clerke to come to him, to take a surrender of these lands to the use of his will; but Clerke not being able to come himself, by writing under his hand and seal appointed Thacker and Ballaston to be his deputies jointly and severally, only to take this surrender. Accordingly Ballaston took the surrender of Charles Kett out of court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v Adams
...would otherwise have been considered to have been a steward de facto (see Knowles v. LuceENR (1580) Moo.K.B. 109; Parker v. KettENR (1701) 1 Ld.Raym. 658) was not effective because the manor had escheated to the Crown. ‘This new grant is in prejudice to the Queen, who is lady of the manor,’......
-
Manitoba Language Rights Reference, (1985) 59 N.R. 321 (SCC)
...[para. 78]. R. v. Bedford Level Corporation (1805), 6 East 356; 102 E.R. 1323, consd. [para. 79]. Parker v. Kett (1702), 1 Ld. Raym. 658; 91 E.R. 1338, refd to. [para. Eadie v. Township of Brantford, [1967] S.C.R. 573, refd to. [para. 82]. Texas v. White (1868), 74 U.S. 700, consd. [para. 8......
-
Manitoba Language Rights Reference, (1985) 35 Man.R.(2d) 83 (SCC)
...[para. 78]. R. v. Bedford Level Corporation (1805), 6 East 356; 102 E.R. 1323, consd. [para. 79]. Parker v. Kett (1702), 1 Ld. Raym. 658; 91 E.R. 1338, refd to. [para. Eadie v. Township of Brantford, [1967] S.C.R. 573, refd to. [para. 82]. Texas v. White (1868), 74 U.S. 700, consd. [para. 8......
-
Maxwell v Parnell
...7 E. & B. 568. Duckworth v. EworthENR 2 H. & C. 129. Sikes v. WildENR 4 B. & S. 421. Lord v. HallENR 8 c. B. 326. Parker v. Kent 1 Lord Raym. 658. Kenworthy v. SchofieldENR 2 B. & C. 945. White v. ProctorENR 4 Taunt. 209. Marshall v. Roe 8 A. & E. 14. Collen v. WrightENR 8 E. & B. 647. Lewi......