R v Dormy
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 1308
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
eex vers. dormy. S. C. Salk. 260. An inquisition for a forcible entry must state expressly that the tenant was disseised. Mr. William Thompson moved for the quashing of an inquisition for a forcible entry, for that, that it did not appear what estate the tenant in possession had; but it was only, that the defendant and others, &c. in messuagium existens a school house adturic existans tenementum de J. S. intraverunt, and the said J. S. disseisit. expulsum, et ejectum, extratenuere. And J. S. perhaps was but tenant at will, which is not within any of the statutes. But Mr. Lechmere said, that the disseisit, should be intended disseisiverunt; which implying, that the tenant in possession had a freehold, it shall be well enough, according to 3 Leon. 102. Palm. 277. Allen, 49. But Mr. Thompson e contra said, that 1 Sid. 102, possessionatus is held to be ill; and 1 Vent. 306, disseisivit is held ill. But per Holt Chief Justice, there ought to be a positive charge of a disseisin; but it is put...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McPhail v Persons, Names Unknown; Bristol Corporation v Ross
...that none of the statutes of forcible entry apply to the expulsion by the owner of a tenant at will, see Anonymous (1653) 1 Ventris 89; Rex v. Dorney (1697) 1 Salk 260; Rex v. Bathurst (1755) Sayer 225; but, even if this is no longer true (2) in any case the statutes only apply to the expul......