Rogers v Pitcher
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 May 1815 |
| Date | 08 May 1815 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 128 E.R. 1012
Common Pleas Division
S. C. 1 Marsh. 541. Principle approved, Doe v. Crago, 1848, 6 C. B. 99; Carlton v. Bowcock, 1884, 51 L. T. 660.
1012 ROGERS V. PITCHER 6 TAUNT. 207. of them he will I In the case of Law v. Ibbotsan the Court of King s Bench took up the opinion, that the Defendant had nothing to do in his archdeaconry, no duty to perform for it, and therefore that the Defendant ought to reside in his rectory house of Bushey : but Wilkinson v. Allot is a later case, and it completely overrules Law v. Ibbotson. DALLAS J. concurring, the Rule was discharged. [202] ROGERS v. PITCHER. May 8, 1815. [S. C. 1 Marsh. 541. Principle approved, Doe v. Crago, 1848, 6 C. B. 99; Carlton v. Bowcock, 1884, 51 T. 660.] In replevin proof of payment of rent to the avowant is prima facie evidence that he is the owner of the land.ùBut in a case where the Plaintiff did not originally receive the possession of the land from the avowant, it is competent to the Plaintiff to rebut the title of the avowant by shewing that he paid rent under circumstances which did not entitle the avowant to the rent.ùAnd such evidence may be given on the issue non tenuit modo et forma.ùSemble that tenant in elegit may enter by virtue of the writ of elegit without ejectment. This was an action of replevin. The defendant avowed for two years' rent due to himself on the 24th of June 1814, on a demise of the closes in which, &c., at the rent of 71. 10s. per ann. payable half yearly. The Plaintiff pleaded that she did not hold the closes in which, &c. as tenant to the Defendant under the supposed demise thereof, in manner arid form as the Defendant had alleged. The Defendant took an issue thereon, which was tried at the Monmouth spring assizes 1815, before Richards B., to whom it was stated, that the object of this cause was to try the validity of a deed granted by Price, a former owner of the land, to Mrs. Baker. The Defendant, on whom the issue lay, proved a receipt given by an agent of the Defendant named Aram to the Plaintiff, for a year's rent paid by the Plaintiff through the hands of her son to the Defendant, due at Midsummer 1812 for one moiety of the Ty Cooch farm, the meaning of which was explained to be, that the estate called Ty Cooch farm had belonged to Price, who had demised it to the Plaintiff at 151. per ann. rent ; and afterwards, being indebted to the avowant, bad given him a warrant of attorney to confess a judgment, which was docketted in February 1810, and the avowant in 1811 sued out a writ of elegit; and the Plaintiff having notice that the sheriff had under that writ taken an inquest and set out the several closes in which, &c. as a moiety of the premises, and returned that he had delivered them to the Defendant, although be the Defendant had not recovered the premises in ejectment, the Plaintiff had attorned, and paid rent to him for a moiety. The Defendant had also exercised certain acts of ownership, by selling coppice wood standing on [203] the farm. The Defendant rested on this case. The Plaintiff proposed to answer it, by shewing that the Defendant was not, at the time of her former payment, or now, entitled to the rent : the Defendant objected, that by the payment of rent, the Plaintiff had acknowledged himself, the Defendant, to he her landlord, and was now estopped from contesting his title. Richards B. held that the proof of payment of rent made a good prima facie case for the avowant, hut that it was capable of being answered by other evidence; but reserved the point. Whereupon the Plaintiff answered this case, by proving that Price being indebted to Sarah Baker in 2071. for several sums of money, lent iu consideration thereof, and of 891. more then paid to him, which sums together were the full value of the farm, in 1809 conveyed the premises in fee, by deed and fine, to Mrs. Baker, and had paid rent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Veale v Warner
...circumstances of mistake or misrepresentation, unless, indeed, he were originally let into possession by the person claiming the rent. 6 Taunt. 202, Rogers v. Pitcher. 1 Marsh. 541, S. C. [8 B. & C. 471, Cornish v. Searell. 3 Bing. 474, Gregory v. Doidge. 11 Moore, 394, S. C. 7 A. & E. 447,......
-
Whitworth v Gaugain
...security which gives him but a feeble and posterior remedy. They cited Neate v. Duke of Marlborough (3 Myl. & Cr. 407), Rogers v. Pitcher (6 Taunt. 202), Henry v. Smith (2 Dr. & War. 381), Averall v. Wade (LI. & Go. temp. Sugden, 252), Appleby v. Smith (3 Anstr. 865), Ex parte Alexander (2 ......
-
National Westminster Bank Ltd v Hart
...of the reversion, and that he paid rent by mistake or in ignorance of the facts relating to the title. Thus, in Rogers v. Pitcher (6 Taunt. 202), which was an action of replevin, the plaintiff, notwithstanding that he had paid rent to the defendant as assignee of the reversion, was allowed ......
-
Crawshay v Thornton
...case. It is said that the letter of the 8th of March amounts to an attorument; but an attornmeut does not make a title; Rogers v. Pitdter (6 Taunt. 202). That letter, having been written in ignorance of the fact that Raikes & Co. had no authority to pledge the goods, did not amount to an at......
-
Table of Cases
...157 [109] Table of Cases Vol. 3 Roe v. R. A. Naylor Ltd. (1918) Volume 87 L.J.K.B. 950…………..……..…….334 Rogers v. Pitcher (1815) 6 Taunt 202............................................................722 Rolin v. Steward (1854) 14 C. B. 595………………..................................…..13 Rookes......