The King against The Inhabitants of Geddington
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1823 |
| Date | 01 January 1823 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 107 E.R. 331
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 3 D. & R. 403. See Trotter v. Watson, 1869, L. R. 4 C. P. 451.
[129] the king against the inhabitants of geddington. 1823. A written agreement was made for the purchase of an estate, to be paid for by two instalments; the first was to be payable within a few days after the signing of the agreement, and the last after the expiration of seven months. The vendor was to make out a good title on the payment of the last instalment, and to convey the premises; but the purchaser was to be let into possession upon the payment of the first instalment. The purchaser paid the first instalment, and was let into possession, and continued in possession for a year and a half, but the last instalment was never paid, nor any conveyance ever executed; and the purchaser afterwards gave up the contract upon receiving back part of the first instalment: Held, that under this contract, the purchaser did not acquire an equitable estate, so as to gain a settlement under the 9 G. 1, c. 7, s. 5. [S. C. 3 D. & R. 403. See Trotter v. Watson, 1869, L. E. 4 C. P. 451.] Upon appeal against an order of two justices, whereby John Garfield, his wife and children, were removed from the parish of Geddington, in the county of Northampton, (a) The sole object of the Legislature in passing the 35 G. 3, c. 101, was to take away the power of removing poor persons likely to become chargeable, and to make them irremoveable till actually chargeable. But in doing this, it became necessary to guard against certain evils which this change would produce to parishes. For instance, by the old law, a person coming into a parish, and giving a written notice to the overseers, would, if he resided forty days, gain a settlement. The reason of this being, that if likely to be chargeable, the overseers, availing themselves of the knowledge thereby communicated, might remove him. But when the law was altered, and actual substituted for probable chargeability, it would follow that a person very likely to become chargeable might, if he was desirous of doing so, come in and give notice, and, in defiance of the overseers, acquire a settlement by only not demanding relief for forty days. In order to remedy this evil, settlement by notice was abolished by sect. 3. So, again, if a person came to settle on a tenement under 101., he would, by the old law, be removeable if likely to become chargeable; but if he was rated, and paid rates in respect of it for forty days, and was not during that time actually chargeable, he might become settled in the parish, and demand relief on the forty-first day. For this reason, such persons rated in respect of tenements under 101., were prevented by sect. 4 from gaining settlements by paying rates. Similar reasons may be given for the two remaining enactments in the fifth and sixth sections. The whole may be thus summed up : wherever the change of the law from probable to actual chargeability, enabled persons who were likely to become chargeable to obtain settlements by preventing the parish officers from removing them during forty days, those settlements were abolished; but where, by the law as it stood before the 35 G. 3, c. 101, such persons were irremoveable, that Act did not interfere with their cases. See the judgment of Holroyd J. in Bex v. Idle, 4 B. & A. 156. Applying this principle to the case here decided, we may conclude that the 35 G. 3, c. 101, did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of St. Margaret, Leicester
...pauper was the person beneficially interested in the estate, and therefore might gain a settlement by residing on it.] Rex v. Geddington (2 B. & C. 129), is, in principle, an authority for the respondents. Lord Denman C.J. I think that Rex \. Natland (Burr. S. C. 793), does not rest upon an......
-
The King against The Inhabitants of Aslackby
...between them and her is that of trustees and cestui que trust. That is material, with a view to the explanation of Rex v. Geddington (2 B. & C. 129), where Holroyd J. said (page 131), "If you shew that the vendor and vendee stood merely in the relation of trustee and cestui que trust, then ......
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of the Parish of Carlton
...v. Salford, 1 W. Bl. 433, 455. (c) Foley's Laws Relating to the Poor, 338 (4th ed.). (V) P. 569 (6th ed.). Citing Rex v. Geddingtm, 2 B. & C. 129, HQ. B. 120. THE ROCHDALE CANAL COMPANY V. KING 49 Act, the party must have, not merely ati equitable right," "but an equitable estate."] In Rex ......
-
Crosthwaite v Conlan
...Rann v. Green Cowp. 476. Lodge v. Creagh 1 Ir. Law Rep. 315. Orpen v. Moore 5 Law Rec. N. S. 249. Rex v. Inhabitants of GeddingtonENR 2 B. & C. 129. Whitfield v. RoeENR 3 Taunt. 402. Henderson v. Dean of Derry Ir. Cr. R. 631; S.C. 4 Law Rec. N.S. 179. Langleys, minors 5 Law Rec. N.S. 41. 53......