Sir William Webb v Paternoster
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1682 |
| Date | 01 January 1682 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 79 E.R. 1250
THE SAME TERM IN THE SAME COURT.
.1250 THE KING V. BRIGGS ROMAN, 151. THE SAME TERM IN THE SAME COURT. Judgment against a defendant when beyond sea with an ambassador reversed. A judgment was obtained against one of the servants of the Lord Hay, Viscount Doncaster, when he was ambassador in Bohemia, and attending upon him there and this matter being disclosed to the Court by the council of the defendant, they would not suffer the plaintiff to have execution upon the said judgment, but ordered the plaintiff to declare de Iwo, to which the defondant should piesently answer. Memorand. It was said to be against the course of the Court, to have an imparlance before the declaration eared. THE SAME TERM IN THE SAME COURT. THE KING against BRIGGS. A subject cannot have a forest. A quo warrants was brought by the King against Briggs, for exercising of certain privileges, who justified by virtue of a forest granted to him and by Bridgeman, this is the first quo warrant which he knew that had been brought against any subject for a forest, for a subject cannot have a forest, but he /nay have a chase, which peradventure may pass tinder the name of a forest. And there are divers incidents to a forest which a subject cannot use nor have ; there ought to be a justice of a forest which a subject cannot have, and such a justice ought to be a man of great dignity. 2. There ought to by verderors who are Judges also, and by 34 K 1. ssrdina4io formic; ought to be by writ, but a subject cannot award a writ. Also there are three Courts incident to a forest. 1. A Court of Attachments which may be without verderors. 2. The Swainmote Court. (151) 3. The justice-seat, and this appeareth in 1 E. 3. cap. 8. 21 E. 4. cap. 8. But by the statute of 27 H. 8. cap. 7. there are some other incidents to a forest. 2. Admit that a subject may have a forest, yet it fails in this case, because he hath shown the exemplification and not the letters patents, and see Coke, lib. 5. Pain's 4488, that neither an exemplification, or coastal, are pleadable at common law, and Coke, lib. 10. Dr. Leyfeildis case. THE SAME TERM IN THE SAME COURT. SIR WILLIAM WEBB versus PATERNOSTER. The case was this; Sir William Plummer licensed Sir William Webb to lay his bay upon the land of the said Sir William Plunimer until he could conveniently sell it, and then Sir William Plummer did make a lease of the land to Paternoster, who put in his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Provincial Bank Ltd v Hastings Car Mart Ltd
...F127[1916] 2 A.C. 54 F128[1936] 3 All E.R. 483. F129(1901) 85 L.T. 650; 18 T.L.R. 169, H.L. F130[1936] 3 All E.R. 483. F13185 L.T. 650. F132Popham 151. F133[1951] 1 K.B. F134[1948] A.C. 173. F135[1951] 2 K.B. 596. F136[1952] 2 Q.B. 466. F137[1951] 2 K.B. 596, 599. F138[1951] 2 K.B. 596. F13......
- Pennine Raceway Ltd v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council
-
Coryton and Another v Lithebye
...by parol, inasmuch as it conveys no interest in the land; as a licence to stack hay: Palm. 71, Webb v. Paternoster. 2 Rol. Rep. 152, S. C. Poph. 151, S. C. : a licence to occupy a box at the opera: 7 Taunt. 374, Tayler v. Waters. 2 Marsh. 551, S. C.: a licence to put a sky-light over the de......
-
Binions v Evans
...could not turn her out any more than he could. She would have, I should have thought, at least as strong a case as the occupier in Webb v. Paternoster (1619) Popham 151, which received the blessing of Lord UpJohn in National Provincial Bank v. Hastings. Car Mart. 1965, A.C. at page 1239. 22......