Right, on The Demise of Lewis and Others, against Beard
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 January 1811 |
| Date | 25 January 1811 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 104 E.R. 350
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
eight, on the demise of lewis and others, against beard. Friday, Jan. 25th, 1811. One who is put in possession upon an agreement for the purchase of land cannot be ousted by ejectment before his lawful possession is determined by demand of possession or otherwise; and even considering such lawful possession as a tenancy at will, the defendant's confession, (by entering into the common rule,) of a lease by the lessor to the nominal plaintiff is not a constructive determination of the will whereon to maintain the ejectment. This was an ejectment brought to recover two acres and a beast grass of land, in the parish of Monkland; and at the trial before Lawrence, J. at Hereford, it appeared that the land had formerly belonged to Lewis, the lessor of the plaintiff, and that he had it in hand from the year 1793 till May 1809, when, as it appeared by the defendant's evidence, the possession of it was formally delivered by Lewis to the defendant, by the breaking and delivery of a bough, and by Lewis ordering the defendant to plough a furrow, as possession. On the part of the defendant also two notices were read, signed by himself, and proved to have been served ; the one directed to one W-. Parry, [211] the mortgagee of the land, stating an agreement between Lewis and the defendant for the purchase of it, and that the defendant was ready to pay off all the mortgage money : the other directed to Lewis, requiring him to deliver to the defendant the title-deeds, or abstracts of them, that conveyances might be prepared; and stating that the defendant was ready to pay him 601. on the conveyances being executed : and further, the defendant proved a receipt by Lewis, dated the 1st of June 1809, for 121. parcel of the purchase-money paid by the defendant. It was thereupon contended, on the part of the defendant, that he was legal tenant at will of the land, and that until demand and refusal of the possession, he was not a trespasser, as the declaration supposed him to be. In answer to which it was said that the defendant had taken possession under a supposed title, and had not been let in under any tenancy, and therefore not as tenant at will: but even if he had been tenant at will, the confession of lease, &c. under the eommon rule, admitted a lease to the plaintiff, which would determine any such tenancy. The learned Judge concurred in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Regan v White
...at p. 449. (1) 4 M. & W. 654. (2) 5 Taunt. 521. (3) L. R. 8 Q. B. 202. (1) I. R. 5 Eq. 613. (1) 2 Sm. & Giff. 437. (1) 1 M. & W. 695. (2) 13 East, 210. (1) 8 A. C., at p. 479. (2) 1 Sw. 181. (3) 5 C. D. 887, at p. 890. (1) 15 L. J. Ch. (2) 10 I. L. T. R. 98. (3) [1900] 1 Ch., at p. 346. (4)......
-
Hoilet et ux v Clarke
... ... obtained Held: Appeal dismissed against refusal of specific performance. Appeal allowed ... refused, and has given the other side the right to say that he has refused performance. He may ... Lewis v. Beard (1811) 13 East 210 , 104 All E.R. 350 ... that time, and the acceptance of such new demise at will would then operate as a surrender of the ... ...
-
Markey v Coote
...C. B. 236. Hull v. Vaughan 6 Pr. 157. Price v. PriceENR 9 Bing. 356. Persse v. Kinneen 4 Ir. Jur. (N. S.) 281. Right d. Lewis v. BeardENR 13 East, 210. Doe d. Tomes v. ChamberlaineENR 5 M. & W. 14. Doe d. Gray v. StanionENR 1 M. & W. 695. Dixon v. YatesENR 5 B. & Ad. 313. Loughnan v. BarryU......
-
Lord Talbot De Malahide v Best and Others
...v. LiddyUNKIR I. R. 1 C. L. 105. Dolman v. DolmanENR 5 T. R. 641. Duke of Leinster v. metcalfeINTL 11 I. L. R. 365. Lewis v. BeardENR 13 East, 210. Kinneen v. Persse 9 I. C. L. R. App. 23. Duppa v. MayoENR 1 Wms. Saund. 275 d. M'Carthy v. BeamishTLR Ir. Law Times, 22nd of May, 1869. Darke v......