The King against The Rev. P. N. Joddrell, Clerk
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1830 |
| Date | 01 January 1830 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 837
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
[403] the king against the bev. P. N. joddkell, Clerk. 1830. By Act of Parliament the tithes in a parish were extinguished, and in lieu thereof the rector entitled to a corn-rent. In a rate for the relief of the poor, he was assessed for the full amount of that corn-rent less the parochial rates. The farmers in the parish who paid the corn-rent to the rector, were rated upon the bond, fide amount of the rack-rent paid by them to their landlords: Held, that the tenants ought not to be rated for a sum made up of the rack-rent paid to their landlords, and the corn-rent paid to the rector, but that they were properly rated on the amount of the rack-rent only: Held, secondly, that the rate was (6) Cited in Ab. on Ship. 76. (a) In JExparte Hamper, 17 Ves. 403, Lord Eldon (citing Benfield's case, decided by Lord Loughborough, 5 Ves. 424), mentions it as clear law, that a dormant partner not being an ostensible contracting party, the creditor, though he may if he chooses, is not bound to go against him. And subsequently, in Ex parte Norfolk, 19 Ves. 455, after noticing the late decision of the Court of Common Pleas in Dubois v. Ludert, that a visible partner may plead that there is a dormant partner, he says, " That is new to me, and contrary to the course in bankruptcy for thirty years. Here it has been taken as unquestionable, that if I deal with A., he cannot, with reference to that transaction, say there is a contract between him and B., of whom I know nothing; thus compelling me to be a joint creditor of those two, whose joint property may be scarcely any thing, and not the sole creditor of the only man I knew. I have said in this place, following a series of precedents, that the joint creditors may elect; that a man purchasing from or selling to A., not knowing of any partner, may consider A. as the sole vendor or vendee. He may, finding that B. has taken a share of the profits, elect to go against him also, but cannot be compelled certainly." 838 THE KING V. JODDBEEL 1.B.& AD.404. unequal, on the ground that the farmer was rated, not for .the full value of the land, which comprised the landlord's and tenant's profit, but for the rack-rent, which was the landlord's profit only, while the rector was rated for the full value of his corn-rent: Held, thirdly, that in estimating the amount at which the rector ought to be .rated, the land-tax ought to be deducted from the full amount of his corn-rent, provided the tenants of the other lands in the manor paid the land-tax without being allowed for it by the landlord, but not if such allowance was made: Held, also, that allowance ought to be made to the rector for ecclesiastical dues, which were a charge upon the rectory, but not for the expenses of providing for the duties of incumbency, because they were a personal charge only. Upon appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Armstrong, Appellant; The Commissioner of Valuation in Ireland, Respondent
...516. (1) I. R. 1 C. L. 283; 2 C. L. 577. (1) [1900] A. C. 150. (1) [1900] A. C. at p. 153. (1) [1900] A. C. 150. (2) 12 A. & E. 382. (3) 1 B. & Ad. 403. (1) [1900] A. C. 150. (2) 5 B. & S. 505. (3) 3 E & E. 450. (1) [1900] A. C. 150. (2) 21 L. R. Ir. 353. (3) 29 L. R. Ir. 429. (4) 4 Ir. C. ......
-
The Queen against Capel, Clerk
...the propriety of rating in respect of all profits. On the other side, reliance will be placed principally [389] on Rex v. Joddrell (1 B. & Ad. 403). The decision in that case is not adverse to the view for which the appellant contends; but some expressions in the judgment undoubtedly are so......
-
The King against The Mayor and Commonalty of York
...of such management, and all charges incident to the occupation, must be allowed as a deduction from [430] the profits; Rex v. Joddrell (1 B. & Ad. 403), Rex v. Ada-mes (4 B. & Ad. 61), and the cases there referred to. In many of the cases of exemption just cited, there was a profit expended......
-
The King against Thomas Andrews Adames
...Bex v. Lower Mitton (9 B. & C. 810), Rex v. Tomlinson (9 B. & C. 163), Rex v. The Oxford Canal Company (10 B. & C. 163), Rex v. Joddrell (1 B. & Ad. 403). [Lord Tenterden C.J. Suppose the land had been let and the landlord had paid sewers' rates, could the tenant have been relieved 1 ] Ther......