Pybus v Mitford
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1803 |
| Date | 01 January 1803 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 83 E.R. 119
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER.
Applied, Bagshaw v. Spencer, 1748, 1 Ves. Sen. 153. Refered to, Thompson v. Gibson, 1841; 8 M. & W. 288 See Coape v. Arnold, 1854-55, 2 Sm. & G. 315; 4 De G. M. & G. 589; Folkard v. Metropolitan Railway Company, 1893, L. R. 8 C. P. 472; Owen v. Gibbons [1902], 1 Ch 638.
RAYM. BIB T. S. TERM. MICH. 25 CAR. 2, B. R. 119 pybus versus mitford. ejectment in northumberland. Intr. Trin. 24 Car. 2, Rot. 703, B. E. [Applied, Bagshaw v. Spencer, 1748, 1 Ves. sen. 153. Referred to, Thompson \, Gibson, 1841; 8 M. & W. 288. See Coape v. Arnold, 1854-55, 2 Sm. & G. 315; 4 De G. M. & G. 589; Folkard v. Metropolitan Railway Company, 1893, L. R. 8 C. P. 472; Owen v. ffiifofts [1902], 1 Ch. 638.] Estate. 2 Danv. Ab. 556, p. 2. 3 Dariv. Ab. 158, p. 8. 2 Lev. 75. 1 Vent. 372. 1 Mod. 121, 159. 3 Keb. 129, 239, 316, 338. Of the demise of Gray and his wife. Upon not guilty, the juiy found a special verdict, that Michael Mitford was seised in fee, and had issue two sons, viz. Robert by his first wife, and Ralph by his second wife, whose name was Jane, and so being seised 23 Jan. 21 Jac. by indenture covenanted to stand seised of the lands in the declaration mentioned after the date of the indenture, to the use of the heirs males of his body begotten on the body of his said wife Jane, with remainders to his own right heirs, and dies. 16 Car. 1, Robert enters and levies a fine to the use of himself and Mary his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, and dies without issue. Mary marries the lessor of the plaintiff; the defendant Ralph enters, and the jury concluded, that if any use did arise to Ralph by the said indenture of 21 Jac. then they find for the defendant, otherwise for the plaintiff. Jones Solicitor General for the plaintiff. That no use arises to the issue of the second wife. Here are two points. 1. If by this covenant an estate be raised by way of future use, to commence after the death of Michael the covenantor. 2. Admitting that no estate do arise, whether an^estate by implication does arise to the heirs of the second wife. 1. No estate arises here as a future use, for these reasons. [229] 1. An use may arise in futuro to a person in esse; but it cannot be limited to one in being, to commence after the death of the covenantor, because a covenant shall not bind the heir, where the ancestor is not bound, and (ergo) a covenant that land shall remain to A. after...
To continue reading
Request your trial