Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

Tregmiell and his Wife against Reeve

Maclean & Robinson's Appeal Cases English Reports Cited authorities 4 Cited in 1 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1792
Date01 January 1792
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 79 E.R. 980

King's Bench Division

Tregmiell and his Wife against Reeve

980 HILARY TERM, 11 CAR. 1. IN B. R. CRO. CAR. 438. case 7. tregmiell and his wife against reeve. If a man covenant to stand aeised to the use of his son, saving that his wife shall have the shrowds and loppings of the trees, an action on the case will lie against the son for cutting down the trees. Jones, 376. Moor, 7. 837. Cro. Jac. 487. 11 Co. 46. 4 Mod. 12. Shower, 311. 1 Salk. 196. 6 Mod. 18. 2 Com. Dig. 559. 3 Com. Dig. 332. On an action for waste, where all the loppings are the property of the plaintiff, the quantity cut need not be shewn. An action for cutting five oaks growing on a hundred acres. In an action on the case for cutting down trees the lops of which wore reserved to the wife for life, the husband may sue alone. Ante, 419. Post. 505.-Cro. Jac. 110. 2 Vent. 195. Cro. Eliz. 461. 608. Jones, 325. 1 Com. Dig. 574. Stra. 229. Action on the case: arid declares, that Sir John Reeve was seised in fee of a farm, and of an hundred acres of land thereto appertaining ; and by indenture covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself and wife for their lives, for a jointure for his said wife, and after to his son and heir, excepting the timber trees, saving that his said wife shall have and take the shrowds and loppings of them ; and that the said Sir John Reeve died, and she survived, and took to husband the plaintiff; and that the defendant, as heir to Sir John Reeve, cut down five oaks growing upon the said hundred acres, whereby the plaintiff lost all the benefit which he might have had of the shrowds and loppings of the said trees. The defendant pleads not guilty, and the verdict was given against him. Hyde took divers exceptions in arrest of judgment. First, that the excepting the trees after the limitation of the use is void, and then, they remaining parcel of the freehold, he might have had trespass; but he could not have this action on the case ; for as an exception after the estate limited is void, so after an use settled an exception cannot be of the trees...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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