Surrey v Piggot

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1662
Date01 January 1662
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 82 E.R. 321

King's Bench Division

Surrey
and
Piggot

surrey versus piggot, H. 1 car. rot. 124. En un action sur le case le plaintiff declare, q^ 11 Octob. 22 Jac. que fuit possesse d'un terme devener del Rectory de Markham en Barks, de quel un curtilage fuit parcel, en quel curtilage la ad estre un watering lieu, de temps dont, &c. pur touts ceux queux ont estre seise del dit rectory pur eux lour tenants, & lessees, pur watering lour avers, & pur auter uses la, & que c flowe de tiel streame de ewe, & courge ouster un hop-yard, del defendant jesque al dit watering lieu, en le curtilage avandit, que le defendant c sachant 14 Oct. 22 Jac. filled, and stopped le dit acquaduct ove terre, & lapids, & erect un mure sur c, al damage le plaint. Le defendant dit que 38 H. 8. le Roy fuit seise del mantior de M. & de c rectory, & del hop-yard auxi, & issint esteant seise, grant c al un box, (viz.) le hop-yard en fee, & box esteant issint seise un seal enter & enfesse le dit Piggot ore defend, c^ esteant issint seise erect le dit mute en le dit hop-yard, come bien a luy list, &c. Sur c le plaint, demurr. Le questio fuit, si p unity del possession, le water-course fuit extinct? Bucksdale, que uemy, quia est un chose de necessity. Et cyte, 4 Rep. 26. benedieta esb expositio, quando res redimitur a destructione. Rent serra extinct p unity, & issint un voy, 14 H. 7. Quia ceux nont existence durant le unity. Et pur c sont ale. Mes auterment del chose, q^ exist nient obstant le unity, come 35 H. 6. 55, 56. Warren 16 Eliz. 326. 11 H. 7. 25. Et que le water-course ad existence, nient obstant le unity, est prove p 12 H. 7. 4. Prtecipe K. B. xl-11 322 LEWIS V. WHITTON LATCH, 134. d'un water-course doit estre pro una acra aqua coopert. Et en le 6 Jac. B. E. inter Chaloner, & Moor, adjudge, que un ejectionse firmas ne giat d'un water-course, quia n'eat firme chose, mes semper errant. Issint c est chose distinct del terre, [154] fe auxi un chose de necessity, cybien come in 12 H. 7. le case del gutter. Le auter exception fuit, quia 1'action est port vers Pigot, & deux auters, fc les deux auters justifye p command del Pigot, mes est nul response pur Pigot. A que fuit respond, que le commander est un trepasser. Et auxi icy est nul title al Pigot al water-course, quia un grant de H. 8. al Box est plead, p que Box fuit seise, & il esteant issint seise, un S. enter, &amp...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Doe, on the demise of Mitchinson, against Carter
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 23 de novembro de 1798
    ...at the last assizes for Essex, before Mr. Justice (a) Vide Parker v. Welsted, 2 Sid. 39, 111. Sury v. Pigot, Poph. 166. Palm. 444. Latch, 153. Noy, 84. 3 Bulstr. 339, S. C. 8T.R.58. DOE V. CARTER 1265 Buller, a verdict was found for the lessor of the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of thi......
  • Dalton v Henry Angus & Co; Commissioners of HM Works and Public Buildings v Henry Angus & Co; sub nom Angus & Company v Dalton
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • Invalid date
    ...F27410 C. B. (N.S.) 268; 13 C. B. (N.S.) 841. F2757 H. L. C. 349. F2761 Sid. 167. F277Palmer, 444; Popham, 166; 3 Bulstrode, 339; Noy, 84; Latch, 153; W. Jones, F2789 H. L. C. 503. F2796 Ch. D. 284. F2804 H. & N. 585. F2813 Q. B. D. 89. F2826 M. & W. 499. F2836 H. & N. 488. F28410 C. B. (N.......
  • Pheysey and Sarah, his Wife v Richard Vicary
    • United Kingdom
    • Exchequer
    • 6 de fevereiro de 1847
    ...C. B., in Barlow v. Rhodes, 3 Tyr. 282. (a) Most fully reported in Popham, 166: S. C., 3 Bulstrode, 339 ; Jones, R. 145 ; Noyi, 84; Latch, 153; sometimes printed Hheiory and Pigot. 18 M. &W. 491. PHEYSEY V. VICARY 1283 that, if it is a mere right of way, it would not pass by the will; where......
  • John Conier's Case
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 1 de janeiro de 1794
    ...Surry and Pigott's cane, unity of possession does not extinguish a watercourse : which see argued at large, M. 2. Car. B. R. [W. Jon. 145. Lat. 153. Palm. 444. Noy, 84. Poph. 166. 3. Bulatr. 339.] (20) Hil. 35. Ed. 3. Eot. 71. Q Oedl Day's case, that nfewa covert shall not have appeal. 3DYE......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT