Pearce v Hooper and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 July 1810 |
| Date | 02 July 1810 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 128 E.R. 25
Common Pleas Division
suffering another recovery de novo, Lens Se*. moved to amend the writs of dedimus and entry, and the warrant of attorney, duplicate and prtecipe at bar, by striking out the name and the warrant of attorney of John Tom the younger, and every thing else that, related to him ; so that the recovery might become a recovery with double voucher only, and might pass as of the last Easter term. The Court pecnitted the amendment. PEARCE V. HOOPER AND OTEINRS. July 2, 1810. If a Defendant calls on a Plaintiff to produce at the trial a deed in his custody, to which the Plaintiff is a party, and under which he claims a beneficial estate, it is not necessary that the Defendant should call the attesting witness to prove the due execution of the deed when produced. Trespass for breaking and entering the Plaintiff's close, called Coldrinick Wood, and cutting down the coppice and underwood there growing, and seizing, taking, and carrying away the same. The Defendant pleaded not guilty. Upon the trial of this cause, at Launceston, at the last Spring assizes for the county of Cornwall, before Graham B , it appeared, that by a lease bearing date the 9th day of March 1766, Sir Christopher Freise granted to Thomas Pearce, for a term of 99 years, determinable on 3 lives, all that messuage and tenement, with the appurtenances, called Coldrinick, then in the occupation of Thomas Pearce, excepting tbereout all timber trees and saplings, with liberty for the lessor to enter and cut them. The lessee was dead : and the Plaintiff was his son, and had for some years been in possession of the premises demised by the lease, as executor to his father. The place in question was a wood, containing about 15 acres, ad-[61]-joining to Coldrinick tenement, and called Coldrinick wood, which the Plaintiff now claimed as part of the estate of Coldrinick. At a public auction, for selling in lots several estates of the proprietor of these premises, held on the 21st of November 1808, the thirty-second lot exposed to sale was described to be the fee simple of Coidrinick estate, then in the possession of the Plaintiff, and containing 45 acres. The Plaintiff was present in person, and was the highest- bidder for this lot, and was declared the purchaser. T he thirty-third la, which was next put up to sale, was described in the particular to be the fee-eimple of Coldrinick wood, in hand, containing 16 acres, with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nagle v Shea
...257. Whelan v. The City of Cork Steam Packet Co.UNK Ir. R. 8 C. L. 383. Bringloe v. GoodsonENR 5 Bing. N. C. 738. Pearce v. HooperENR 3 Taunt. 60. Orr v. MoriceENR 3 Br. & B. 139. Bunett v. LynchENR 5 B. & C. 589. Doe v. WainwrightENR 5 Ad. & E. 520. Vacher v. CocksENR 1 B. & Ad. 145. Bring......
-
Clarke, Esq, v Earnshaw
...94, S. P But the rule, as thus laid down, has been narrowed and restricted by the determination in the recent case of Pearce v. Hooper, 3 Taunt. 60. The rule there established appears to be this When a party to a suit, in compliance with a notice, produces an instrument to which he is a par......
-
Doe on the demise of W. Wilkins against The Marquis of Cleveland and Joseph Parsley
...if an adverse party who produces a deed takes any [867] beneficial interest under it, Burnett v. Lynch (5 B. & C. 589), Pearce v. Hooper (3 Taunt. 60), Orr v. Morrice (3 B. & B. 139), or has recognized it as a valid instrument, Doe v. Heming (6 B. & C. 28), it is unnecessary for the party w......
-
Standen v Standen and Others
...it, but it must be proved by the subscribing witness, Johnson v Mason, 1 Esp 89 , R v Harnngworth, 4 M and S. 350 In Pearce v Hooper, 3 Taunt 60, the Court of C P held, that if a defendant calls on a plaintiff to produce on tie trial a deed in his custody, to which the plaintift is a party,......