R v Semaynes; Semayne's Case
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1616 |
| Date | 01 January 1616 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 77 E.R. 194
IN THE KING'S BENCH.
S. C. Cro. Eliz. 908. 1 Sm. L. C. (11th ed. 1905), 104. See Harvey v. Harvey, 1884, 26 Ch. D. 651; Hodder v. Williams [1895], 2 Q. B. 666.
[91 a] semayne's case. Mich. 2. Jac. 1. In the King's Bench. [S. C. Cro. Eliz. 908. 1 Sm. L. C. (llth ed. 1905), 104.- See Harvey v. Harvey, 1884, 26 Ch. D. 651; Hodder v. Williams [1895], 2 Q. B. 666.] Eesolved :-1. The house of every one is his castle, and if thieves come to a man's house to rob or murder, and the owner or his servants kill any of the thieves in defence of himself and his house, it is no felony and he shall lose nothing. 2. Where any house is recovered by any real action, or by eject, firmce, the sheriff may break the house and deliver the seisin or possession. 3. In all cases where the King is party, the sheriff may break the house, either to arrest or do other execution of the King's process, if he cannot otherwise enter. But he ought first to signify the cause of his coming, and make request to open the doors. 4. Where the door is open the sheriff may enter, and do execution at the suit of a subject, and so also in such case may the lord, and distrain for his rent or service. It is not lawful for the sheriff, on request made and denial, at the suit of a common person, to break the defendant's house, scil. to execute any process at the suit of a subject. 5. The house of any one is only a privilege for himself, and does not extend to protect any person who flies to his house, or the goods of any other which are brought there, to prevent a lawful execution and to escape the process of the law : in such cases after request and denial, the sheriff may break the house. 6. If the sheriff might break open the door to execute civil process, yet it must be after request made. 7. The allegation prcemisarum non iynarus is not sufficient, where notice is material. S. C. [Moor, 668. Yelv. 28. Cro. Eliz. 908]. Fide the entry, Co. Ent. 12. pi. 11. In an action on the case by Peter Semayne, plaintiff, and Richard Gresham, defendant, the case was such ; the defendant and one George Berisford were joint-tenants of a house in Blackfriars in London for years. George Berisford acknowledged a recognizance in the nature of a statute-staple to the plaintiff, and being possessed of divers goods in the said house died, by which the defendant was possessed of the house by survivorship, in which the goods continued and remained; the plaintiff sued process of extent on the statute to the sheriffs of London ; the sheriffs returned the conusor dead, on which the plaintiff had another writ to extend all the lands which he had at the time of the statute acknowledged, or at any time after, and (d) Dyer, 363. pi. 24. (e) Cr. Jac. 254. 1 Roll. 328. (/) Co. Lit. 181. b. 1 Roll. 329. Yelv. 25, 26. Noy, 47. Hutt. 127. 1 Roll. Rep. 399. 2 Inst. 38. 27 H. 8. 6. b. 1 Co. 92. a. Dy. 62. pi. 34. 2 Roll. Rep. 101. 3 Bulstr. 210. 5 co.rhp. 91 b. semayne's case 195 all his goods which he had at the day of his death; which writ the plaintiff delivered to the sheriffs of London, and told them that divers goods, which were the said George Berisford's at the time of his death, were in the said house; and thereupon the sheriffs, by virtue of the said writ, charged a jury to make inquiry according to the said writ, and the sheriffs and jury accesseruni ad domum prcedictam ostio domus prcedict' aperto existen' et bonis prcedictis in prcedicta domo tune existed, and they offered to enter the said house, to extend the [91 b] goods according to the said writ; and the defendant prcemissorum non ignanis, intending to disturb the execution, ostio prced' domus tune aperto existen', daudebat contra vicecom' & jurator' prced'; whereby they could not come, and extend the said goods, nor the sheriff seize them, by which he lost the benefit and profit of his writ, &c. And in this case these points were resolved. 1. That the house of every one is to him as his (a) castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence, as for his repose; and although the life of man is a thing precious and favoured in law; so that although a man kills another in his defence, or kills (b) one per infwturi, without any intent, yet it is felony, and in such case he shall forfeit his goods and chattels (A), for the great regard which the law haa to a man'a life; but if thieves come to a man's (c) house to rob him, or murder, and the owner of his servants kill any of the thieves in defence of himself and his house, it is not felony, and he shall lose nothing (b), and therewith agree 3 E. 3. Coron. 303, & 305. & 26 Ass. pi. 23. So it is held...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. v. Raponi (W.), 2006 ABQB 593
...source of some confusion in the courts below. It is surprising that nearly four hundred years after Semayne's Case (1604), 5 Co. Rep. 91a; 77 E.R. 194, there should be any debate about the matter. That case firmly enunciated the principle that 'a man's home is his castle', and that even the......
-
R. v. Silveira (A.), (1995) 181 N.R. 161 (SCC)
...R. v. Macooh, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 802; 155 N.R. 44; 141 A.R. 321; 46 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 55]. Semayne's Case (1604), 5 Co. Rep. 91; 77 E.R. 194, refd to. [para. R. v. Lyons, Prevedoros and McGuire, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 633; 56 N.R. 6; 58 A.R. 2, refd to. [para. 58]. R. v. Rao (1984), 4 O.A.C......
-
R. v. Stairs, 2022 SCC 11
...51; referred to: Cloutier v. Langlois, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; Eccles v. Bourque, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739; Semayne’s Case (1604), 5 Co. Rep. 91a, 77 E.R. 194; R. v. Tessling, 2004 SCC 67, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 432; R. v. Silveira, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297; R. v. Feeney, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13; R. v. Pohoretsky, ......
-
R. v. Feeney (M.), (1997) 91 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)
...255, refd to. [para. 29]. Dumbell v. Roberts, [1944] 1 All E.R. 326 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32]. Semayne's Case (1604), 5 Co. Rep. 91a; 77 E.R. 194, refd to. [para. 40]. R. v. Colet, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 2; 35 N.R. 227, refd to. [para. 40]. Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 24......
-
Table of Cases
...v Tophams Ltd (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 50, [1966] 2 WLR 814, [1966] 1 All ER 1039, HL 170 Table of Cases xxi Semayne’s Case (1604) 5 Co Rep 91a, 77 ER 194, [1558–1774] All ER Rep 62, Ct of KB 5 Seymour v Flamborough Parish Council (1997) Farm Law , 1 February, (1997) 31 January, Cty Ct 76, 77 She......
-
Table of cases
...841, 124 CCC (3d) 129, [1998] SCJ No 42 ...................................................... 75–76 Semayne’s Case (1604), 5 Co Rep 91a, 77 ER 194 (KB) ........................................17 Stevens c R, 2016 QCCA 1707 .........................................................................
-
Sources of Criminal Procedure
...13. 52 [1997] 2 SCR 13. 53 Although Landry , above note 49, was decided in 1986, the facts predate the Charter . 54 (1604), 5 Co Rep 91a, 77 ER 194 (KB). 55 Sections 529.1–529.5. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 18 “ Waterfield test” is the name that has often been used. 56 The Waterfield test asks two q......
-
Table of Cases
...291 Semayne’s Case (1604), 5 Co. Rep. 91 a, 77 E.R. 194 (K.B.) .................................. 285 Smith v. Canada, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 902, 210 D.L.R. (4th) 289 .................................. 121 Solosky v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821 .......................................................