Peaceable, on Demise of Uncle, v Watson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 June 1811 |
| Date | 19 June 1811 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 128 E.R. 232
Common Pleas Division
Applied, R. V. Birmingham Overseers, 1861, 1 B. & S. 769; Sly v. Sly, 1877, 2 P. D. 93.
282 PEACEABLE V. W ANSON 4 TAUNT. 16. execution against A. Beevor, and though the judgment is jointly against another, A. Beevor is liable for the whole. LAWRENCE J. A plaintiff cannot have a separate execution on a joint judgment ; but in the case cited, though the latitat was against Donner and two others, yet the Plaintiff might in the King's Bench have declared against Donner only. Here the Plaintiff has not contented himself with stating the delivery of the writ to the sheriff, and the false return thereto, but has gone further, and stated a judgment and a writ issued conformably thereto ; but upon the production of the evidence the judgment appears to be different, and such as does not authorize the writ. If the Plaintiff states the judgment, he undertakes to prove it, but a judgment against two cannot be taken to be the same as a judgment against one only. Best, contriL, was stopped by the Court, Mansfield C. J. concurring with Lawrence J.; and thereupon the rule was made Absolute. (161 PEACEABLE, ON DOUSE OF UNCLE, V. WATSON. June 19, 1811. [Applied, B. v. Birmingham Overseers, 1861, 1 B. & S. 769; Sly v. Sly, 1877, 2 P. D. 93.] The declarations of a deceased occupier of land of whom he held the land, are evidence of the seisin of that person.But it must first be shewn that the land the deceased occupied was the laud now in the tenant's possession. This was an ejectment brought to recover possession of three houses at Wisbeach. Upon the trial at the Cambridge spring assizes 1811, before Grose J., the counsel for the Plaintiff, whose lessor claimed the premises by descent from Robert Farthing, in order to shew the seisin of Robert Farthing, asked a witness if he had known one Clarke now deceased, and upon his saying yes, asked if he had ever heard Clarke say of whom he rented the houses which he occupied in Wisheaeh. The counsel for the Defendant objecting to this question, Grose J. refused to permit it to be put, and the Plaintiff, being unable to prove his title without this evidence was nonsuited. Another objection was also raised by the Defendant, that the term alleged to be demised to the Plaintiff had expired before the trial, hut that objection was over-ruled at the trial, and the rejection sanctioned by the Court afterwards, who said it might be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mabo v State of Queensland (No2)
...v BaldwinUNK (1934) 52 CLR, at 624, 632–3; Pollock and Maitland, p 46 647. Peaceable d Uncle v WatsonENRENR (1811) 4 Taunt 16, at 17; 128 ER 232, at 232; Wheeler v Baldwin (1934) 52 CLR, at 632; see also Doe d Stansbury v ArkwrightENRENR (1833) 5 Car & P 575; 172 ER 1105; Denn d Tarzwell v ......
-
The Rev. John Rudd, Clerk, Plaintiff; John Wright, John Wood, John Coupe, James Wagstaff, Ann Chambers, and John Horncastle, Defendants
...Cambridge (2 Wood, 142 ; 1 Wils. 170, 2 E. & Y 106), Hollmoay v. Eaikes (cited in Davies v. Pierce, 1 T. R. 55), Peaceable v. Watstm (4 Taunt. 16), Pengal v. Nicholson (Wightw. 63, 2 E. A Y. 583), and fftgham v. Padgway (10 East, 109). For the defendants Wood and Wright were cited Daws v. B......
-
Bridget and Papendick against William Bridgwater
...the two as to weight.] That question was raised in Fursdon v. Clogg(b), but not decided. [Coleridge J. In Peaceable dem. Uncle v. Watson (4 Taunt. 16) the [174] declarations which were held to be admissible were oral.] At any rate, the importance of the evidence here is so slight that the r......
-
R v Birmingham Overseers
...is receivable: 1 Stark. Ev. 353, 365-6, 3d ed., Hollmvay v. Bakes, cited in Davies v. Pierce (2 T. E. 53), Peaceable d. Uncle v. Watson, (4 Taunt. 16), Walker v. Broadstock (\ Eap. 458), Doe d. Hindly v. Rickarly (5 Eap. 4), Due d. BaggalUy v. Jones (1 Campb. 367). [Cockburn C.J. Walker v. ......