Thomas Unton seisi de terre in fee, tenust del Roy per service de Chi. in capit fist
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1664 |
| Date | 01 January 1664 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 123 E.R. 322
DEL COMMON-BANK
Thomas Unton seisi de terre in fee, tenust del Roy per service de Chi. In capit fist
VI. : Thomas Unton seisi de terre in fee, tenust del Roy per service de Chi. in capit fist son volunt & done le dit terre a sa femme pur vie rein ouster, &c. en fee, & fuit agard per cast devyse que les deux parts del Manner passer per le Statute de 32 H. 8. que [4] ordena que home poit devise 2 parts des Tenements tenus, &c. in troia parts d'estre devydes les queux parols d'estre devydes sont en le future temps, scilicet d'estre devydea apres son mort ^ prist le devise. Et ceo fuit a juge d'eatre le Ley nient obstant 1'statute de 34 H. 8. en quel ceo volunt de Unton est except car per divers parts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
634 cases
-
George Anthony Hylton v Georgia Pinnock (as Executrix of the Estate of Dorothy Mcintosh, Deceased), Lloyd's Property Development Ltd and Lloyd E. Gibson
......-law,’ and stated that their address for service was 66 Barry Street, Kingston. The caveator ...Sir Thomas Bingham MR having stated that judges do have the ......
-
Gary Nelson Appellant v [1] Attorney General [2] Colin Derrick, Minister of Justice [3] The Police Service Commission Respondents [ECSC]
...(2) irrationality, where the decision making authority has acted so unreasonably that no reasonable authority would have made that decision; and (3) procedural impropriety, where the decision making authority has failed in its duty to act fairly. 57 In the celebrated case ofCouncil of Civil......
-
C.O. Williams Construction (ST. Lucia) Ltd Applicant/Defendant v Inter-Island Dredging Company Ltd Respondent/Claimant [ECSC]
...of their application for an extension of time satisfied the "check-list" for applications for relief from sanctions in sub-rules 26.8(2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2000 ("CPR 2000"), and the learned judge failed to consider this in determining whether their application should be g......
-
Selby v Director of Public Prosecutions (on Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))
...off covered by it must be with intent to defraud shews that no dishonest intent is needed to constitute the offences created by section 5( 1) and (3). I am not myself impressed by that argument. In the first place, subsection (6) only came into the code in 1861 and even if one could see no ......
Request a trial to view additional results