Yaxley v Rainer
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 926
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
yaxley vers. eainer. Int. Hil. 6, Will. 3, C. B. Rot. 307. In an action for a copyhold fine for a licence to aliene, there is no occasion to shew that the place where the fine was appointed to be paid is within the manor. Where a tender ought to be pleaded with a tout temps prist it cannot be pleaded after an imparlance. E. ace. post, 254. Lutw. 238, vide Comb. 50. Barnes 4to, Ed. 353, 357. Debt brought by the plaintiff, lord of the manor of Yaxley Bull's Hall, against the defendant a copyholder of the same manor, for a fine for licence to aliene copyhold lands; and he declares, that there is, arid time whereof, &c. was, a custom within the manor of Yaxley's Bull's Hall, that all the copyholders within the same manor have used time whereof, &c. to pay to the lord of the said manor upon every alienation of the said copyhold lands, a fine for licence to aliene. That the plaintiff was lord of the said manor, and that the defendant was a copyholder of the same manor. And that the plaintiff gave licence to the defendant to aliene, for which the plaintiff assessed so much for a fine, and gave day to the defendant to pay it at Yaxley Hall; that the defendant aliened, and did not pay the fine to the plaintiff; by which an action accrued to the plaintiff, &c. The defendant imparles ; and then as to part he pleads a tender. And to this the plaintiff replies, that the defendant shall not be admitted to plead it after an imparlance, &c. The defendant rejoins, mil tiel record of the imparlance, and this was found against the defendant. As to the other part the defendant pleads nil debet, and verdict for the plaintiff. And Serjeant Rotherham moved in arrest of judgment, that the declaration was ill, because it did not appear, that the place where the money for the fine was appointed to be paid, was within the manor of Yaxley Bull's Hall; but rather it appeared, that it was appointed to be paid out of the manor, for it was appointed to be paid at Yaxley Hall, which is not said to be within the manor. And it shall not be intended to be the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shales v Seignoret
...The Court held, that it did not appear to the Court but that the Bank-stock was transferrable at another place than at the office of the 1LD.RAYM.44J. EASTER TERM, 11 WILL. 3 1193 bank ò for though the Act says, that no transfer shall be but as the King shall appoint, and the King haa appo......
-
Brittel v Bade
...case Mich. 6 Will. & Mar. C. B. Rot. 553, where in ejectment the defendant pleaded, that the lands, for which 926 EASTER TERM, 7 WILL. 3 1 LD. RAYM. 44. the ejectment was brought, were ancient demesne; the plaintiff replied, that they were copyhold, &c. and upon demurrer it was adjudged for......