Peter against Kendal and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1827 |
| Date | 01 January 1827 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 108 E.R. 610
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 5 L. J. K. B. O. S. 282. Adopted, Royal v. Yaxley, 1872, 20 W. R. 904. Applied, Milleton v. Power, 1886, 19 L. R. Ir. 16. See Attorney-General v. Simpson, [1901] 2 Ch. 718; [1904] A. C. 476.
petek against kendal and another. 1827. The owner of a ferry demised it to A. by parol at a certain annual rent. The latter, at the end of a few weeks, finding it unprofitable, proposed to become the servant of the former as boatman, and to account to him for all money received from passengers, upon being allowed fixed daily wages. This was assented to by the owner of the ferry, and A. became his servant, and received the stipulated wages : Held, that there was a surrender of A.'s interest in the ferry by act and operation of law. In an action on the case for the disturbance of a ferry, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove that he was in possession of the ferry at the time when the cause of action arose. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to allege in his declaration, or to prove at the trial, the payment of any specified sum for passage money. Neglect of duty on the part of the owner of the ferry is no answer to the action, although the Crown may, on that ground, repeal the grant by scire facias or quo warranto. The owner of a ferry must have a right to use the laud on both sides of the water for the purpose of embarking and disembarking his passengers, but he need not have any property in the soil on either side. Qu. Whether a ferry can be demised without deed ? {S. C. 5 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 282. Adopted, Royal v. Yaxley, 1872, 20 W. E. 904. Applied, Midleton v. Power, 1886,19 L. E. Ir. 16. See Attorney-General v. Simpson, [1901] 2 Ch. 718; [1904] A. C. 476.] This was an action on the case for the disturbance of a ferry. The declaration stated that the plaintiff was lawfully possessed of a certain ancient ferry over a certain river, from a place called Eock, otherwise Black Eock, in the parish of Saint Minver, in the county of Cornwall, to Padstow, in the same county, and from Padstow to the said place called Eock, &c., for carrying and conveying within the said ferry all passengers and other persons having occasion for the same, and the horses and goods of all such passengers and persons, [704] from, &c., to, &c., in boats kept by and by the authority of the plaintiff there for that purpose, taking for the same certain reasonable freights and ferryages to the said plaintiff in that behalf due and of right payable; that defendants wrongfully carried divers passengers, &c. for hire in a certain boat over and across the river where plaintiff had such ferry, and upon the said ferry, whereby the plaintiff lost great gains and profits, and was disturbed in his possession of the ferry. The second count stated the wrongful carrying to be in a boat of the defendant's, and near to the said ferry of the plaintiff. At the trial before Gaselee J. at the Bodmin Assizes, July 1826, it appeared that by copy of a court roll of the manor of Penmaine of the 28th December 1748, Humphrey Arthur, one of the customary tenants, surrendered one moiety of the passage from Black Eock, within the parish of Minver, in the county of Cornwall, parcel of the customary lands of the said manor, and part of the ancient Duchy of Cornwall, with all its rights, &e., together with one boat, &e., upon condition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thursby and Others v Plant
...does not set up a surrender as the defence, but merely an executed contract. 8 A. & E. 118. Gore v. Wright, 3 N. & P. 243, S. C. See alao 6 B. & C. 703, Peter v. Kendal.~\ So where the tenant of several houses underlet each of them to different persons, and the landlord gave notice to quit ......
-
Coryton and Another v Lithebye
...where, in an action upon the case for disturb- (/) [So he need not set forth or prove the payment of any specified sum for passage-money. 6 B. & C. 703, Peter v. Kendal. 2 Y. & Je'rv. 285, Trotter v. Harris.] (g) See also 6 East, 207, Bealey v. Shaw. And accordingly in 1 Price, 27, Compton ......
-
The Mayor and Burgesses of Lyme Regis, - Plaintiffs (in Error); Henry Hoste Henley, Esq., - Defendant (in Error)
...collected Co. Dig. Franchises, Y. 3. * ** 4 B. & C. 781. 4 Bligh, N. S. 213. ttt Cro. Jac. 399. 521. JJJ 1 Lev. 64. 1 Salk. 17. !||||| 6 B. & C. 703. 1111 1 Lev. Rep. 64. **** Show. 255.; Garth. 191. tttt Hadr. 163. 1102 LYME REGIS V. HENLEY [1834] VIII BLIGH N. S. poration for not repairin......
-
R v The North and South Shields Ferry Company
...Bridge Company, 15 Q. B. 369 ; Regina v. The Marquis of Salisbury, 8 A. & E. 716; Rex v. Coke, 5 B. & C. 797; Peter v. Kendal, 6 B. & C. 703; Williams v. Jones, 12 East, 346; Bex v. Snowdtm, 4 B. & Ad. 713; Sex v. The New River Company, 1 M. & S. 503; Rex v. The Corporation of Bath, 14 East......