Sir Jeremy Whichcott's Case
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1826 |
| Date | 01 January 1826 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 89 E.R. 336
THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
336 de term. pasch^e, 1677 1 freeman, 80. case 611. sir jeremy whichcott's case. S. C. continued from p. 441. A. being warden of the Fleet in fee, grants the office to B. for life, who suffers a prisoner in execution for a debt to escape: debt lies against A. But semb. it must appear that B. was insufficient at the time of the action brought. Special verdict, when helped by intendment. Judgment being prayed for the plaintiff, the Court said, they were all of opinion in this case, that Sir Jeremy was a superior, and liable to the party's action ; but the special verdict seemed insufficient; because it found the insufficiency of Duckenfield (who was the lessee) long before, and at the time of the escape, but did not find it at the time of the action brought; and therefore advised the counsel to consider of that point, whether they must not be forced to take a venire fa' de novo. Per quod nota, g ' le insufficiency del inferior doit esire averred and proved. 9 Co. 98. 2 lust. 382. Afterwards [it was] argued to make out the special verdict by intendment ; and it being found that he was insufficient once, it shall not be presumed after that he became suffi-[450]-cient, unless it be shewn ; and cited Cro. Car. 231, and these cases of intendments in verdicts, Moor 447. 4 Co. Fulwood's case. Hob. 142. Moor, Lord Pagett's cane ; but the Court seemed that it could not be good, being substance (a). case 612. Semb. S. C. Gregory v. Major or Mayo, 2 Lev. 194. 2 Mod. 213. 3 Keb. 744, 755. In assumpsit by a lessee, upon a general promise of quiet enjoyment, he needs not shew that the interruption was under a lawful title. Assumpsit. The defendant leased land to the plaintiff, and promised that he should enjoy it quietly, without interruption of any person ; and the plaintiff shews an interruption, but doth not shew any title in the interrupter, nor any lawful interruption. And the cases of Procham and Cham, and Leigh and GoUuim, 2 Cro. 425, 444, were cited for the defendant, that the plaintiff ought to shew a lawful interruption, or else the action would not lie ; and a case was cited in Vaughan's Reports (1), where Dy. 328, was denied. But yet the Court gave judgment for the plaintiff, upon the authority of Dy. 328, and Hob. 35. And Wylde said, that where in a deed a man covenants, that he hath a good right to convey, &c. and that the party shall quietly...
To continue reading
Request your trial