The King against The Inhabitants of Great Glenn
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 June 1833 |
| Date | 01 June 1833 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 762
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 2 N. & M. 91; 2 L. J. M. C. 69. Considered, R. v. Halifax, 1855, 4 El. & Bl. 653.
[188] the king against the inhabitants of great glenn. Saturday, June 1st, 1833. A. rented a house in the appellant parish of L. as tenant from year to year, and died. His widow, a fortnight after his death, told the landlord that she wished to pay the rent weekly; he assented, and she paid it weekly for the following nine months, when she quitted on a week's notice. Two months after her husband's death, the attorney for the respondent parish (which had relieved the widow) told her she had a right to take out administration if she chose, and if she would leave it to him, he would do whatever was necessary; she assented. The letters of administration were obtained, and the pauper resided forty days afterwards in the appellant parish. The sessions found;that the administration was fraudulently taken out by the direction and at the expense of the respondent parish, for the purpose of settling the pauper in the appellant parish: Held, that as the widow was not only entitled, but bound by law, to take out administration, there was no fraud in the transaction which could prevent her from taking, as administratrix, her husband's interest as yearly tenant, and thereby acquiring a settlement. But the Court referred it back to the sessions as a question of fact, whether the widow, after administration granted, continued a weekly tenant, or became a tenant from year to year, in her husband's right. [S. C. 2 N. & M. 91; 2 L. J. M. C. 69. Considered, B. v. Halifax, 1855, 4 El. & Bl. 653.] Upon appeal against an order of two justices, whereby Mary Stevens and her three children were removed from the parish or township of Great Glenn to the parish or township of Leir, both in the county of Leicester, the sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case:- The pauper Stevens was married to John Stevens in April 1827; and on their marriage she and her husband went to live in a house in the appellant parish, which her husband had taken of Thomas Eaglefield as tenant from year to year, at the rent of 31. per annum, which was a rack-rent. They continued to live in this house until the 14th of May 1831, when the husband died. The widow (the pauper) continued the possession from thence for about a fortnight or three weeks. She then went to the respondent parish for a few days, viz. from Monday till Saturday, when she returned to Leir, having left her sister in possession of the house during her absence. She was relieved there by the respondents until the 3d of December following. On the next 2d of June after her husband's death, the pauper had an [189] interview with the landlord, and told him she wished to pay the rent weekly; he assented, and it was agreed that the pauper should pay Is. 2d. per week, which she paid accordingly until the 5th of March, when she quitted in consequence of having received a week's notice to quit. Some time in August after her husband's death, the pauper took out letters of administration to the effects of her husband, under the following circumstances. The attorney for the respondent parish, accompanied by a clergyman, in that month called upon the pauper, and administered the oath, saying, "We shall be obliged to get you to take out letters of administration: I dare say you don't understand it. You have a right to take out letters of administration, if you like ; and if you will leave it to me...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen against the Inhabitants of the Township of Halifax
...would not (if unexercised) be held to prevent the party being irremoveable within the rule by the parish officers. In Rex v. Great Gknn (5 B. & Ad. 188), which was relied on by Mr. Pickering, the question was, whether the widow took an estate from her husband by the administration, or was r......
-
Hopwood v Whaley
...(d) Citing 3 Prest. on Abst. 146 ; Bacon v. Simpson, 3 M. & W. 87, per Parke, B. (e) Citing The Kingv. The Inhabitants of Great Glenn, 5 B. & Ad. 188, 2 N..& M. 94. 6 C. B.745. HOPWOOD V. WHALEY 1441 in his hands to be administered." Eeplication, " that C. did, after his entry upon the prem......
-
The King against The Inhabitants of Barnard Castle
...but not doing so, or whether she became a yearly tenant [110] in her own right. The case is, in this respect, like Rex v. Great Glenn (5 B. & Ad. 188). If she had any interest as tenant in her own right, the pauper, by marrying her, became settled. Now, the widow, not having taken out admin......