Steping v Gladen. in C. B
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1826 |
| Date | 01 January 1826 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 89 E.R. 17
THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
[20] case 22. harvy & corydon v. willoughby. In B. R. S. C. 2 Saund. 115. 1 Vent. 167. 2 Lev. 27. 2 Kebl. 631, 803, 822, 838, 850. The owners of two antient mills in a manor, at one or the other of which the tenants are bound to grind, may join in an action for not grinding at either. The plaintiff's intitle themselves to each of them a mill, and declare that they had used to repair the said mills, and prescribe, that all the inhabitants within the manor had used to grind omne frumentum that they spent, &c. at their mills, or at the mill of one of them (1). Two exceptions were taken to the declaration by the Court; for as this prescription is alleged, possibly one of the plaintiff's might have no cause of action ; for if A. have an ancient mill where the inhabitants use to grind, and B. erects a new mill in the same town, it may be truly said, that the inhabitants are to grind at the mills of A. arid B. or the mill of one of them, although they were not obliged at all to grind at the mill of B. Per Hale, C. J.-But to intitle them both, it ought to be alleged that all the corn not ground at the mill of A. used to be ground at the mill of B. and that all corn not ground at the mill of B. used to be ground at the (a) Fide post, Harland v. Cocke, p. 316 ; and c. 397. Cro. Jac. 582. Cro. El. 791. 1 Leon. 316. T. Jones, 23, 129. 1 Mod. 173, 75. 2 Ld. Raym. 860. Holroyd v. Breare, 2 Barn. & Aid. 477. Nels. Lex. Man. 55, 58. Bac. Abr. tit. Court-Baron. Howard v. Wood, post, p. 473-9. (1) Bohun Privil. 306, 311. 14 East, 222. But it must show the process returned. (1) Ace. Powell, B., in Gwynne v. Poole, 2 Lutw. 1561, where the want of a plaint is said to be only error. See Hah v. Claro, 6 Mod. 150. Com. Dig. Imprisonment, H. 8. But see Head v. Wilmot, 1 Ventr. 220. Patrick v. Johnson, 3 Lev. 404. 2 Lev. 81. Bennett v. Theme, post, p. 356. 3 Keb. 221, 251. Squibb v. Hole, 2 Mod. 30. Moore v. Taylor, 5 Taunt. 71. Bowland v. Veale, Cowper, 18 ; and the following pre cedents of justifications by officers under mesne process of Inferior Courts, Rastal, fol. 668, pi. 2, pi. 3. Liber Placitandi, p. 302, 309, 312, 378. 2 Lutw. 938. (2) Qucere, Keilway, 89, pi. 12. (c) Willes, 33, n. (a). Ibid. 126, n. (b). 5 Taunt. 69. 10 East, 73; and Bennet v. Evans, post, c. 388. Middleton v. Price, 1 Wils. 17. (1) See the pleadings in 2 Saund. S. C. 18 DE TERM...
To continue reading
Request your trial