Sir Lister Holt and another, - Appellants; Robert Lowe, - Respondent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 April 1736 |
| Date | 19 April 1736 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 2 E.R. 868
House of Lords
Mew's Dig. v. 867.
case 4.-Sir lister holt and another,-Appellants; eobekt lowe,- Respondent [19th April 1736]. [Mew's Dig. v. 867.] The plea of a fine and long possession under it is not a good bar to- a bill brought for a discovery of the deeds, declaring the uses of such fine. order of the Court of Exchequer reversed. William Lord Brereton, being seised in fee of the impropriate rectory of Middk wich, and of the advowson and vicarage of the said church, as appendant to the rectory, and being minded to sell the same, agreed with Robert Lowe, the respondent's grandfather, for the sale thereof; and in pursuance of this agreement, the said William Lord Brereton and Elizabeth his wife, and William, their son and heir apparent, in 1664 levied a fine sur conusance de droit come ceo, etc. in consideration o f 1000 therein mentioned to be the purchase money, in the court of the county palatine of Chester, to the said Robert Lowe, and to Edward Minshall, Gabriel Hodson, and John Wilson, (who all three afterwards died in Lowe's lifetime), and to the heirs of the said Robert Lowe, and warranted the same against the said Lord Brereton and his heirs for ever. And the 1000 purchase money then paid by Lowe, was a full price for the absolute purchase of the premises. At the time of this purchase, one Lawrence Griffith was vicar of the church, and afterwards died in possession of the same in the year 1680 ; and upon his death, the respondent's father [570] Samuel Lowe, being then entitled to the advowson under the said purchase, would have presented to the vicarage; but Lawrence Griffith having never been instituted to the same, the crown became entitled to that turn of presenting thereto by lapse; and accordingly presented one Thomas Falkner, who was thereupon instituted and inducted. 868 HOLT V. LOWE [1736] V BROWN. But Falkner, refusing to take the oaths required by law, was therefore deprived of the vicarage, and the same again became void; whereupon the respondent's father would have presented thereto, but could not prevail on his clerk to accept the same, till Falkner should be actually put out of the possession thereof; Samuel Lowe therefore prosecuted him both in the Ecclesiastical Court and at law for that purpose; but before he could recover the possession of the vicarage, the then turn of presentation thereto became likewise lapsed to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hungate v Gascoigne
...of evidence, and as conducive to the ground of the relief, must be met and answered (Evans v. Harris, 2 V. & B., 301 ; Holt v. Lowe, 5 Bro. P. C., 569, Toml. ed. ; Leu/It v. Leigh, 1 Sim., 349). Mr. Monro in reply. [711] Auq. 2. the lokd Cru;vcei.lor [Lyndhurst]. The bill, after stating 1 R......