Sury & Pigott

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1721
Date01 January 1721
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 81 E.R. 1163

King's Bench Division

Sury & Pigott

S. C. Popham, 166. See Angus v. Dalton, 1877-81, 3 Q. B. D. 105; 6 App. Cas. 740.

[444] suby & pigott, hill. 1 caroli, eot. 124. [S. C. Popham, 166. See Angus v. Dalfon, 1877-81, 3 Q. B. D. 105; 6 App. Cas. 740.] En action sur le case plaintiff declare, que 11 Octob. 22 Jac. il fuit possess d'un term d'ans a vener del Eectory de Markam in Berks, de que un curtilage fuit parcel, en quel curtilage la ad estre un watering lieu de temps d'ont, &c. pur touts ceux que ont estre seisie del dit rectory, pur eux lour tenants & lessees pur water lour beasts, & pur auters uses la, & que ceo flow de tiel stream de ewe, & courge ouster un hop-yard del defendant, jesque al dit watering lieu en curtilage avant dit. Et les defendants ceo sachant, 14 Octob. 22 Jac. fill & stop le dit watercourse ove terre & stones, & erect un mure sur ceo al damage le plaintiff. Les defendants diorit, que 38 H. 8. H. 8. Roy fuit seisie en fee del manor de Markham, & cest rectory, & del hopyard auxy: et issiut esteant seisie, ceo grant a un Box, viz. le hopyard en fee. Et Box iasint esteant seisie, un Serle enter, & enfeoffa le dit Pigott ore defendant, qua esteant issint seisie erect le murre en le dit hopyard, come bien a luy list, &c. Sur ceo le plaintiff demurre. Le question fuit, si per unity de possession le watercourse fuit extinct. Barksdale, que nemy, quia est chose de necessity, & il cite 4 Co. 26. Benedicta est expositio, quando res redimitur a destructione. Kent serra extinguy per unity ; & iasint un voy, 14 H. 4. 17. Car eeux n'ont existence durant le unity, & pur ceo sont ale. Mes auterment de chose que existit, nient obstant le unity, come 35 H. 6. 55, 56. Warren. 16 Eliz. 326. Liberty a forester de driver beasts hors de auter terre en le forest n'est extinguy per unity, 11 H. 7. 25. Un gutter; et que le watercourse ad existence nient obstant le unity est prove per 12 H. 7. 4. Precedent de watercourse doit estre un' acram aquis cooperatam. Et en 6 Jac. in B. R. inter Challoner & Moore adjudge, que ejectione firma3 ne gist d'un watercourse, quia n'eat firm chose, mes semper errant. Issint ceo est chose distinct del terre, & auxy chose de necessity, cybien come en 11 H. 7. 12. le case del gutter: ceo est egall necessity ea ambideux òcases. II prist un exception, quia [445] 1'action est port vers Pigott & deux auters, & les deux auters Justine per command de Pigott; mes est nul resp. pur...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Doe, on the demise of Mitchinson, against Carter
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 23 November 1798
    ...of this ejectment 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 ......
  • Suffield v Brown
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 1 January 1864
    ...To this case and to the case in the Year Book of the llth of Henry VII. (25 PI. 6 ; L'oppy v. J. de B.), or the case of Sury v. Pigott (Palmer, 444), there can be no objection, but they do not give any support to the decision in Dyer v. Carter. The other case relied on by His Honour, namely......
  • 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
    ...& C. 332. F2729 Co. Rep. 58 b. F2732 Ves. Sen. 453. 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. F2......
  • Chasemore v Richards
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 27 July 1859
    ...considered, really left no room for doubt on this subject. The case of Shury v. Pigott, decided in 1625 (3 Bulstr. 339; Poph. 166; Palm. 444), [383] Whitlock, Justice, laid it down that " a watercourse differs from a way or common; that it doth not begin by prescription, nor yet by assent, ......
  • 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