Richards against Sely
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 86 E.R. 952
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER.
case 64. richards against sely. If a copyholder, to secure a person who has become bound for him, covenant, that such person shall hold and enjoy the copyhold estate for seven years and so from seven years to seven years, for and during the term of forty-nine years, if the copyholder should so long live, it is a forfeiture of the estate, although there is a clause that the deed should be void on the bond being paid ; for this deed, though intended only as a collateral security, amounts to a present lease.-S. C. 3 Keb. 638. This was a special verdict in ejectment for lands in the county of Cornwall. The case was this, viz. Thomas Sely was seised of the lands in question for life, according to the custom of the manor of P. and he together with one Peter Sely were bound in a bond to a third person for the payment of one hundred pounds, being the proper debt of the said Thomas, who gave Peter a counterbond to save himself harmless ; and that Thomas being so seised did execute a deed to Peter, as a collateral security to indemnify him for the payment of this hundred pounds; by which deed, after a recital of the counter-bond given to Peter, and the estate which Thomas had in the lands, he did "covenant, grant, and agree, for himself, his executors, administrators, and assigns, with the said Peter, that he, his executors and administrators, should hold and enjoy these lauds from the time of the making of the said deed for seven years, and so from the end of seven years to seven years, for and during the term of forty-nine years, if Thomas should so long live:" in which deed there was a covenant, that if the said hundred pounds should be paid, and Peter saved harmless, according to the condition of the said counter-bond, then the said deed to be void. The question was, whether this being in the case of copyhold lands, will amount to a lease thereof, and so make a forfeiture of the copyhold estate, there being no custom to warrant it? [80] This case'was argued this term by Pemberton, Serjeant, for the plaintiff", and in Trinity term following by Maynard, Serjeant, on the same side, who said, that this was not a good lease to entitle the lord to a forfeiture. It hath been a general rule, that the word "covenant" will make a lease, though the word "grant" be omitted. Nay, a licence to hold land for a time without either of those...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lessee Delap v Leonard
...n. Twynam V. PickardENR 2 B. & A1. 115. Hodgkins V. ThornboroughENR Pollex, 143. Whillock V. HortonENR Cro. Jac. 91. Richards V. SeelyENR 2 Mod. 79. Hewlins V. ShippamENR 5 B. & C. 221. Cocker V. CowperENR 1 C. M. & R. 418. Winter's caseENR 3 Dyer, 309. Rawlyns' caseENR 4 Coke 52. Britman V......
-
Doe on the Demise of Coore against Clare
...that if this be taken to be a lease, it will work a forfeiture ; that cannot be made by any person claiming under the copyholder ; and in 2 Mod. 79, that sort of objection was over-ruled. Then in respect to the stamp being such as is generally used for agreements only, that can never alter ......
-
Doe, on the demise of Nunn, against Lufkin and Others
...but the demise for the whole period was to take effect under that deed. The primary object then was to lease for 14 years, and the (c)1 2 Mod. 79. " (a)i 2 Keb. 267. (5)1 2 Mod. 79. ()2 1'Salk. 185. 1 Show. 284. 3 Lev. 326, and 4 Mod. 80. (J)2 Yelv. 222. Cro. Jac. 305. (c)2 Cro. Eliz. 606, ......