Right, on the several demises of the Dean and Chapter of Wells, against Bawden and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 February 1803 |
| Date | 01 February 1803 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 597
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
[260] bight, on the several demises of the dean and chapter of wells, against bawden and others. Tuesday, Feb. 1st, 1803. Under a grant by a copy of court-roll of a reversionary estate to A. (who had before a life estate in the premises) habendum to him for the lives of B. and C. his grandsons during the life of either of them longest living successively, according to the custom, &c. reserving a heriot and 6s. rent; A. only takes the legal estate in reversion, and not the cestuy que vies, there being no custom to enable them to take; although they were stated to be admitted tenants in reversion. And though in considera-- tion of the fine paid by the grandfather, the lord suffered the first in succession of the cestuy que vies to enter as tenant upon the death of his grandfather, and received the 6s. rent from him till his death: yet he not dying seised of the legal estate, his widow could not claim her free bench according to the custom. Nor did such receipt of rent from the cestuy que vie constitute a tenancy from year to year,.so as to entitle his widow to notice to quit, the rent not being received as between landlord and tenant, but attributable to another consideration. In ejectment for lands in the parishes of Burnham and Mark in the county of Somerset, tried at the last Summer Assizes at Wells, before Graham B., in which there were three demises in the declaration, all from the Dean and Chapter of Wells, the first on the 1st of August 1796, the second on the 8th of June 1801, the last on the 14th of April 1802; a verdict was found for the lessors of the plaintiff, subject to the opinion'of this Court on the following case: The premises in question are situated in the parishes of Burnham and Mark, and are a customary tenement, part of the parsonage manor of Burnham, and have immemo-rially been granted and demised by copy of court roll, and have passed and been holden thereby. The lessors of the plaintiff are seised in fee of the manor in right of their church. The custom of the manor has immemorially been to grant such customary copyholds for three lives in one copy, and as many in reversion as the landlord and tenant can agree for. At the death of every tenant dying seised of a customary tenement there is due to the lord, for an heriot, the best goods of the tenant so dying; and the widow of such tenant is to enjoy the said tenement during her-widowhood. In the year 1705 the premises in question were holden by Robert Bawden for his life, with remainder to Mary his wife and Robert his son, successively. On the 29th of June 1705 William Bawden, another son of the said Robert Bawden the father, pur-[261]-chased of the lords for a fine of 101. a reversionary interest in the premises in question after the then existing lives: and at a manor court duly holden on the same day the lords granted the following copy: "To this court comes William Bawden, son of Robert Bawden, and, "of the assignment of the said Robert the father, took of the said lords the reversion of one tenement containing twelve acres of land or pasture in Watch-Fen, and four acres of land in the west part of Broadharp, with the appurtenances, within the manor aforesaid, now in the tenure of the said Robert Bawden the father, and after him the remainder thereof to Mary his wife and Robert the son, for the term of their lives successively; to have and to hold tile said reversion and all and singular the aforesaid premises with the appurtenances to him the said William Bawden and to Hercules Bawden his brother, and Elizabeth Bawden his sister, for the term of their lives and the life of the longest liver of them, successively, and according to the custom of the said .manor, as soon and immediately as the same shall fall in after the death, surrender, or forfeiture of the said Robert Bawden the father, Mary his wife, and Robert the son, by the rents, customs, suits, 598 RIGHT V..BAWDEN 3 EAST,262. and services therefore formerly owing and lawfully accustomed, and by the best goods or best beast for an heriot when it shall happen, or three pounds of lawful money at the will and election of the lords aforesaid; and also by the scouring and digging the rivers of the lords aforesaid, when and as often .as it shall be necessary as they should be required thereto. And for having such estate and interest in the said reversion of the premises, the said William Bawden the son:gives to the said lords, for a fine, 101. to them in hand paid: and so as well he, as Hercules his brother, and Elizabeth his sister, are admitted tenants as in rever-[262]-sion; but their fealty is respited until, and so forth." William Bawden paid this fine. After this grant and admission, and before the year 1710, Robert Bawden the father and Robert Bawden the son died, and Elizabeth Bawden had married Edward Coles .and had two children by him, Edward and Elizabeth. Edward Coles the father, on the 2d of October 1710, purchased of the said lords for 91. 10s. a reversionary interest in the premises in question after the existing lives, for the lives of Edward his son and Elizabeth his daughter; and at a court of the said manor, duly holden on that day, the said lords by a copy of that date, according to the custom of the said manor, granted the said reversion of the same premises to Edward and Elizabeth Coles, the son and daughter, for their lives and the life of the survivor, successively, after the death, surrender, or forfeiture of Mary Bawden, William Bawden, Hercules Bawden, and Elizabeth Coles the mother. The copy is similar to that before stated; and on the same reservations Edward and Elizabeth Coles the son and daughter are stated to take of the purchase of Edward Coles the father; the habendum is to the son arid daughter; they are stated to have been admitted tenants in reversion, and their fealty respited; Edward Coles the father is stated to have paid the fine and did pay it. Before 1748 Mary Bawden and Hercules Bawden died, and, on the death of Mary, William Bawden, the purchaser of the copy in 1705 and taker under it, entered into the premises in question under that copy, a,nd was possessed thereof accordingly, and had a son called Robert Bawden. On the 4th of July 1748 Robert Bawden the son of the said William purchased of the lords for 131. 14s. a reversionary interest in the premises in question, after the then existing lives for his own life ; and at a [263] court of the said manor duly holden on that day the said lords by a copy of that date, made according to the custom of the said manor, granted the same to him accordingly; and he is stated in the copy to have been admitted tenant in reversion. He paid the fine. Before 1766 Edward Coles the son and Robert Bawden the son of William died ; the latter left two sons, Robert Bawden and William Bawden. On the 1st July 1766 William Bawden the grandfather, the taker under the copy of 1705, being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reynolds v Reynolds
...502. Whittick v. JohnstonENR Gow. 173. Lennon v. Napper 2 Sch. & Lef. 685. Martin v. CotterUNK 9 Ir. Eq. Rep. 351. Right v. BawdenENR 3 East, 260. Smith v. PackhurstENR 3 Atk. 135. Palmer's caseUNK 4 Rep. 74. Goodtitle v. Gibbs 5 B. & Cr. 79. Whittick v. JohnsonENR Gow. 173. 172 CASES IN EQ......
-
Drake, Clerk, against Mitchell and Others
...Cro. Eliz. 283. . . . (b) Cited in 'Hooper's case, 2 Leon. 110, and said to be adjudged. (c) 1 Lev. 261. (d) Cro. Jac. 73, and Yelv. 67, .3 EAST, 260. RIGHT 17. BAWDEN 597 could only operate as a collateral security] and though judgment has been recovered on the bill, yet not having produce......
-
Jeans v Cooke
...and Mr. W. W. Cooper cited as to the custom Doe d. Nepean v. Goddard (1 Barn. & C. 522); RigM d. The Dean and Chapter of Wells v. Bawden (3 East, 260); Lewis v. Lane (2 Myl. & K. 449); Smith v. Baker (1 Atk. 385). As to advancement they cited Finch v. Finch (15 Ves. 43, 50); Skeats v. Cheat......
-
Garland v Jekyll and Another
...(3 Burr. 1543), Roe d. Noden v. Griffiths (5 Burr. 1961), Church v. Mundy (12 Ves. 431), Bight d. Dean and Chapter of Wells v. Bawden (3 East, 260). Therefore, [287] though tha daughters of Samuel Warner claim to be admitted severally, it appears clearly from the whole of the court roll, th......