Roberts v Lambert
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 February 1810 |
| Date | 10 February 1810 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 127 E.R. 1086
Common Pleas Division
1086 ROBERTS V. LAMBERT 2 TAUNT. 283. where a lessee takes an estate by indenture, be is not at liberty to plead nil habuit in tenementis, nor in any way to dispute the title of his lessor. Now this plea puts in issue, amongst other matters, the title of the lessor. It is truly stated for the Defendant, that in cases of a grant or feofFment, a stranger may plead, "did not grant, or did not enfeof," and that plea denies not only the existence, but the efficacy of the supposed grant or feofreent. It brings in issue therefore the title of the grantor, as well as the operation of the deed, and that plea would be a proper plea to bring in issue the execution, construction, and efficacy of any deed of demise. Then the question comes, whether the assignee of the lease may be allowed to controvert the title of the lessor, when the lessee, under whom he derives, could not controvert the title of the lessor ; so that the assignee should have a better right than be from whom he derives it. Exclusive of all the dicta, it would be a very odd thing [283] in the law of any country, if A. could take, by any form of conveyance, a greater or better right than be had who conveys it to him ; it would be contrary to all principle. But it does not rest merely on the general principle ; for if you look into all the books upon estoppel, you find it laid down, that parties and privies are estopped, and he who takes an estate under a deed, is privy in estate, and therefore never can be in a better situation than he from whom he takes it. I cannot distinguish Parker v. Manning from this case, though it is the converse. In a late case in this court (see post), Williams Serjt., by an able argument for a devisee, endeavoured to convince us that a recovery was void because there was no tenant to the prtecipe ; but it was answered for the heir, that the devisor was tenant on the record, and therefore estopped from disputing the recovery, and the devisee consequently was estopped. In the case of Trevivan v. Lawrence, 1 Salk, 276, cited by Williams in that argument, a judgment in, wire facial against tertenants, which recited the original judgment as of the wrong term, was held to be an estoppel. For these reasons the Defendant is as much estopped from pleading this plea as if he had been the original lessee, and consequently the judgment on these demurrers must be For the Plaintiff. ROBERTS v. LAMBERT...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v Needham
...estate of the lessee conveyed to him, which estate is created by indenture, There is nothing more clear than that 1086 ROBERTS V. LAMBERT 2 TAUNT. 283. where a lessee takes an estate by indenture, be is not at liberty to plead nil habuit in tenementis, nor in any way to dispute the title of......
-
Cooke v Blake
...of A. B., and a grant by him to A. B., the traverse of the grant would have put ih issue the admittance otdy. Again, in Tuylvr v. Ne&lham (2 Taunt. 283), where Lord (l/hief Justice Mansfield says, that the plea of non demisit puts in issue the title, the c|eclaration was on a quod cum demis......
-
Burmester against Hilch
...to have been by the st. 6 & 7 W. 3, c. 18, s. 19, which in Gallile'-s .case, 7 Term Rep. 673, was held to be no longer in force. (a)2 2 Taunt. 283. ; . 486 BELL V. BYRNE 13 EAST, 554. to enhance expence on the part of the plaintiff, there seems ^to be no ground for the Court to interfere ou......