Sir Harry Peachy v The Duke of Somerset
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 93 E.R. 626
King's Bench Division
Principle applied, Keating v. Sparrow 1810, 1 Ball & B. 374; Protector Endowment Loan Company v. Grice, 1880, 5 Q. B. D. 595. Referred to, Law v. Redditch Local Board [1892], 1 Q. B. 133. Dictum adopted, In re Dixon [1900], 2 Ch. 577.
good title or warranty, was allowed to be a witness, to prove the title of the vendee (2). (a) Cm. Elix. 423. (b) Ante, 25, and the note. (c) Vide Duke of Marlborough v. Lord Godolphin, 2 Vex. 77. (d) Vide Rex v. NUMZ, post, 1043. (446] JOCELYN vers. HAWKINS. At Guildhall, coram Pratt. In contracts for stock the computation must be by lunar months. The contract was to deliver stock one month after ; the tender was according to the calendar mouth. But the Chief Justice ruled it must be a lunar month, though we called a great many witnesses to prove the course of the alley to be to reckon according to calendar months (1). So my client was called. Vide 4 Mod, 185. 1) Vide Titus v. Lady Preston, past, 652, seems contra. But see Talbot v. Lady 3 Burr. 1455, and Rex v. Adderley, Doug. 446, S. P. upon an Act of Parliament. ANONYMOUS, At Nisi Prins, coram Pratt Chief Justice, in Middlesex. Action against a constable not confined to the proper county, where he does not act in execution of his office. Trespass and assault. On the evidence it appeared the defendant was a constable and lived at Dover, and that being ordered to take the plaintiff and carry him before the mayor, he executed his warrant, and the mayor discharged the plaintiff. Soon after which a dispute happening between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant beat the plaintiff, for which this action was brought. For the defendant they insisted, that he being a constable, they should have brought the action in the proper county, according to the Statute 21 Jac. 1. Sed per Pratt Chief Justice, that is only where it is for a matter relating to the execution of his office ; but if after his authority is expired, he abuses the party ; or if be meets a man and knocks him down, he may be sued for it as all other people may. DOMINUS Rex vers. JEFFICRIES. Ibidem. Evidence. Keble's statutes and Rastal's differed, and they who were for adhering to Keble proved that they had examined him with the Parliament roll. The Chief Justice ruled it was enough, and Keble was read. Cac,. 42,5 (447] SIR HARRY PEACHY vers. THE DUKE OF SOMERSET. IN CANC. [Principle applied, Keating v. Sparrow, 1810, 1 Ball & B. 374 ; Protector Endowment Loan Company v. Grice, 1880, 5 Q. B. D. 595. Referred to, Law v. Redditch Local Board [1892], I Q. B. 133. Dictum adopted, In re Dixon [1900], 2 Ch. 577]. No relief against a voluntary forfeiture of copyhold estate, as by making a lease without licence from the lord. But it is otherwise where the forfeiture was only intended by way of security for sums due. As of a fine or rent, for there, upon payment of what is due, with interest, equity will relieve. Quare, whether working a quarry in a copyhold which had been first opened on the freehold, or lopping tree's, or grubbing up hedges are legal forfeitures of a copyholder's estate. Prec. in Chaim 568. 2 Eq. Abr. 227, e. 9, 228, c. 10, S. C. The plaintiff brought his bill to be relieved against a forfeiture of his copyhold by making leases contrary to the custom of the manor without licence of the lord, felling timber, digging stones, and grubbing up hedges ; offering to make a recompense. And on the pleadings the case was this : Sir Harry being seised of a copyhold estate of inheritance of 901. per annum, held of the manor of Petwortb, of which the Duke of Somerset is lord, made a lease of part of it for seven years without licence at 131. per annum. The duke upon this brings an ejectment against all the plaintiff's copyhold, which occasioned the plaintiff to bring a bill in his own and his son an infant's name for relief. The duke in his answer insisting on other causes of forfeiture, besides the making the lease without licence, Sir Harry brought a supplemental bill for discovery and relief against those other forfeitures : upon the plaintiff's giving judgment in ejectment subject to the order of the Court, an injunction was granted, and now upon the hearing the case came out to be this. Upon Sir Harry's marriage in 1693, all the copyhold lands were surrendered to the use of Sir Harry for life, with remainder to the first and every other son in tail male, in pursuance of an agreement before marriage for that purpose, but no admittance was ever taken upon that surrender. Before Sir Harry came into possession, there had been a quarry of stone in the freehold adjoining to the copyhold, and during Sir Harry's time it was worked in the copyhold ; but whether it was first opened in the copyhold in the plaintiff's time did not appear. The avenue to the plaintiff's house, which consisted both of freehold and copyhold, was planted with timber trees by the plaintiff's father ; the plaintiff had topped those trees that were on the copyhold part of the avenue, by which from timber they were become pollards. There were several hedges and boundaries of lands upon the copyhold, which the plaintiff had grubbed up and destroyed ; but whether they are boundaries between copyhold and freehold, or only between one part and another of the copyhold, did not appear...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Kota Tinggi and Johore Sugar Plantations and Industries Bhd v Pemungut Hasil Tanah, Kota Tinggi; United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd
-
Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis
...bond in the courts of common law, on terms that the defendant paid damages. As Lord Macclesfield observed in Peachy v Duke of Somerset (1720) 1 Strange 447, 453: "The true ground of relief against penalties is from the original intent of the case, where the penalty is designed only to secur......
-
The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd (formerly General Motors UK Ltd)
...was seen as part of the jurisdiction to relieve against penalties. This is clear from the judgment of Lord Macclesfield LC in Peachy v Duke of Somerset (1720) 1 Str 447, 453, which was a case about a claim for relief against forfeiture of a copyhold interest. In the course of his judgment h......
-
First Personnel Services Ltd v Halfords Ltd
...of the penalty rule, when it was still the creature of equity, and is reflected in Lord Macclesfield LC's observation in the Peachy case 1 Str 447 (quoted in para 5 above) about the application of the penalty rule to provisions which were "never intended by way of compensation", for which e......
-
Lecture
...ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis[2016] AC 1172 at 1192; [2015] UKSC 67 at [4], per Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption. 26Peachy v Duke of Somerset(1720) 1 Strange 447 at 453, as quoted in Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis[2016] AC 1172 at 1193; [2015] UKSC 67 at [5], per ......