Page images
PDF
EPUB

Statement of Time of Demise.] The demise must be laid [*449] subsequently to the plaintiff's right of entry, Goodtitle v. Galloway, 4 T. R. 680, B. N. P. 105; and it must not be laid after the service of the declaration, "because it would then appear upon the proof that the nominal plt. had no title at the time of the service," p. Bailey, J. Doe d. Laurence v. Shawcross, 3 B. & C. 754; 5 D. & R. 711; Doe v. Fachan, 15 East, 286. It should be laid as far back as the title of the lessor will admit, with a view to the mesne profits, as the plt. is entitled to all such as may arise subsequently to the day of the demise: Aislin v. Parkin, Burr. 665. A demise by an administrator may be laid before administration granted, but it must be after the death of the party, 2 Selw. N. P. 682; and a demise by the heir by descent, on the day of the death of his ancestor, was held good, because, though made on the same day, yet it might be after the death: Roe d. Wrangham v. Hersey, 3 Wils. 274. When assignees of a bankrupt are lessors of the plt., the demise must be laid after execution of bargain and sale by the commissioners to the assignees, for the freehold remains in the bankrupt, though not beneficially, until taken out of him by the conveyance: Doe d. Esdaile v. Mitchell, 1 M. & S. 446; Doe d. Whatley v. Telling, 2 East, 256. When an actual entry is necessary to avoid a fine, the demise must be laid after the entry: Berington d. Dormer v. Parkhurst, 13 East, 489; Str. 1086, s. c. Where the surrenderee of a copyhold is lessor of the plt., the demise may be stated to have been made between the times of surrender and admittance, Holdfast d. Woollams v. Clapham, 1 T. R. 600, Doe d. Bennington v. Hall, 16 East, 211, where Ld. Ellenb. observes, "We will not look to his title till admittance; but, when admitted, and his legal title perfected, we will look to his real title, derived from the act of the party surrendering to him, which has been made perfect by the subsequent admittance." In the case of a tenancy at will, the demise must be laid after the possession has been demanded, Adams, Eject., 98. the possession of the deft. then becoming unlawful: Right d. Lewis v. Beard, 13 East, 210; Hegan v. Johnson, 2 Taunt. 148. In the case of a demise by overseers of the poor, it should be stated' to be made by those for the time being, at the period of bringing the action, if the party has recognized a tenancy under them; or, if not, it may be laid as the demise of the overseers who granted him possession, Doe d. Grundy v. Clarke, 14 East, 488; perhaps any recognition, under any set of overseers, would be sufficient to support a demise laid from them: ib. 489. As regards the time of the demise, it is sometimes usual, should any difficulty occur as to the exact period, to insert different demises by the lessor of the plt. to have taken place on different days: Adams, Eject., 185; 2 Chit. Pl. 880. The duration of the term, as alleged to have been demised to the plt., is not material; so the plaintiff may declare on a demise for five years, though the lessor of the plt. have only a lease for three years: Doe d. Shore v. Porter, 3 T. R. 13; B. N. P. 106; Clerk v. Rowell, 1 Mod. 10, overruling Roe v. Williamson, 2 Lev. 140. Where an actual entry is necessary, the demise should be laid subsequently to it: Doe d. Lee Compere v. Hicks, 7 T. R. 433.

Statement of Premises.] The description of premises in the declaration must be sufficiently certain; and it will be enough to state lands by the provincial names usually adopted in the counties where they are situate; thus, in Norfolk, "five acres of alder carr" has been held good; so, in Suffolk, for a beast gate, and, in Yorkshire, for a cattlegate; so, in Durham, for coal mines, without showing the number, Wittingham v. Andrews, Salk. 254, Barnes v. Peterson, Str. 1063, Bennington v. Goodtitle, ib. 1084; and, in Ireland, for a township, or kneave, for so many acres of bog, or of mountain, ib., Cottingham v. King, Burr. 623; but for mountain or waste in England the description must be more certain, because those terms comprehend many sorts of land: Hancock v. Price, Hard. 57. Describing premises as a hop-yard, so also as an orchard, has been held sufficient: Wright v. Wheatley, [*450] Noy, 37; Cro. E. 854, s. c.; Royston v. Eccleston, Cro. J. 654. The word tenement is not a sufficient description of the premises, Goodtitle v. Walton, Str. 834, Copleston v. Piper, Ld. Raym. 191; nor is a messuage or tenement, Goodright d. Welch v. Flood, 3 Wils. 23, Wood v. Payne, Cro. E. 186; nor messuage and tenement, Doe d. Bradshaw v. Plowman, 1 East, 441; Doe d. Stewart v. Denton, 1 T. R. 11; but this error in describing the premises cannot, it appears, be now taken advantage of by the deft.: Goodtitle d. Wright v. Otway, 8 East, 357. A description, however, of the premises as a messuage or tenement, will be sufficient, if there be additional words tending to explain the uncertainty of the expression, as a messuage or tenement, called the Black Swan, Burbary v. Yoemans, 1 Sid. 295; describing the place as a passage-room has been held good: Bindover v. Sindercombe, 2 Ld. Raym. 1470. So "a certain place called the vestry," Hutchinson v. Puller, 3 Lev. 95, and "a room or chamber in a second story:" Anon. 3 Leon. 210. So, for a stable and cottage: Hill v. Giles, Cro. E. 218; Lady Dacre's cases, 1 Lev. 58; Hamond v. Ireland, Sty. 215. So, for a messuage or burgage, because they both have the same signification: Danvers v. Wellington, Hard. 173; Rochester v. Rickhouse, Pop. 203. So, describing the premises as "part of a house in A.:" Sullivan v. Seagrave, Str. 695; Rawson v. Maynard, Cro. E. 286. So, ejectment for "four corn mills:" Fitzgerald v. Marshall, 1 Mod. 90. In describing land, the particular species should be alleged, as pasture or meadow, &c., and the quantity of each must be shown, Massey v. Rice, Cowp. 346; Savell's case, 11 Co. 55; the term close is not a sufficient description, Knight v. Sims, Salk. 254; Jones v. Hoel, Cro. E. 235; ten acres of underwood has been deemed sufficiently certain, Warren v. Wakeley, 2 Roll. Rep. 482; so, fifty acres of gorse and furse: Fitzgerald v. Marshall, i Mod. 90; and fifty acres of furse, and heath and moor and marsh, Connor v. West, Burr. 2672, and ten acres of peas: Odingsall v. Jackson, 1 Brown, 149. So, for a manor, or a portion of a manor, as a moiety, without a more particular description: Adams, Eject., 28. In ejectment for tithes, the quantity need not be stated; they will be sufficiently described as certain tithes of hay, wool, wheat, &c.: Harpur's case, 11 Co. 25; Worrall v. Harper, 1 Roll. Rep. 65; Anon. Dyer, 116. When there has been a former ejectment, and the person ejecting builds upon the premises, the owner need not mention the

building; a description of the land will be sufficient: Goodtitle d. Chester v. Alker, 1 Burr. 133. It is usual to allege the number of acres or messuages, &c. in the declaration to be greater in number than may actually be the case, for the plaintiff will be entitled to recover less than the number alleged, but he cannot recover more than that number, Den d. Burgis v. Purvis, Burr. 326, Gay v. Rand, Cro. E. 13; and a moiety, or third part, may be recovered, where in the declaration the whole is claimed: Ablett v. Skinner, 1 Sid. 229; Goodwin v. Blackman, 3 Lev. 334.

Statement of Local Situation of Premises.] There is no occasion to mention the parish or hamlet in which the premises are situate; the name of the place will be sufficient, Goodtitle d. Bunbridge v. Walter, 4 Taunt. 671; and, indeed, the name of the place need not be strictly alleged, if, from other parts of the declaration, a sufficient description can be collected: Goodright d. Smallwood v. Strother, Bl. R. 706. Where, however, the parish, &c. be attempted to be set out, it must be correctly alleged, or a variance will be fatal; as, where the premises were described as situate in the united parishes of St. Giles in the Fields and St. George, Bloomsbury, when it appeared that the two parishes were united by act of Parliament for the maintenance of their poor only, and not for any other purpose, it was held bad: Goodtitle v. Sammimam, 2 Camp. 274; 6 Esp. Rep. 128, s. c. So, describing [*451] lands as situate in the parishes of A. and B., or one of them, was held bad for uncertainty: Goodright v. Fawson, 7 Mod. 457; Cottingham v. King, Burr. 624; Goodwin v. Blackman, 3 Lev. 334. But, where they were stated to lie in the parish of Westputworth and Bradbury, and it appeared they were separate parishes, it was nevertheless held good, for the word parish might be rejected: ib.; Goodtitle v. Walter, 4 Taunt. 671. So, where they were described as being in the parish of Fardham, and it appeared to be Farnham Royal, Doe d. Tollet v. Salter, 13 East, 9; or in St. Mary, Lambeth, and they were situate in Lambeth; R. v. Glossop, 4 B. & A. 619; Kirkland v. Pounsett, 1 Taunt. 570. Where the situation of the premises was stated to be in Westbury, and it appeared there were two Westburys, one on Trym, the other on Severn, it was still held to be good: Doe d. James v. Harris, 5 M. & S. 326; but see 13 East, 9. the premises are situate in two parishes, they may be described as lying in the two, or in each respectively: see post, "Precedent."

Plaintiff's Entry.] This need not be alleged to have been made on any particular day, although it is usual to state one: Adams, 194; 2 Roll. R. 466.

Statement of Ouster.] An ouster should be stated; as to proof of it, see post. The day on which the ouster is stated to have taken place should be after the commencement of the supposed demise. It is not unusual, though unnecessary, to mention a particular day: Cro. Jac. 311. A mistake in the statement of the day, especially if the words "afterwards, to wit," are introduced before it, would not, it seems, be immaterial: Cro. Jac. 96; Adams, 195; B. N. P. 106.

NOTICE TO APPEAR. Form of] The notice to appear at the foot of the declaration should be directed to the tenant in possession by his

name, 7 T. R. 477, 1 Chit. Rep. 215, a. 1 Moo. 113, 2 Chit. Rep. 179. It is best to insert both his Christian and surname: 1 Chit. Rep. 573, a. When there are several tenants in possession, it is usual and best to prefix the name of all the tenants to each declaration, though this is not absolutely necessary: 7 T. R. 477; 5 Moo. 73. The notice must require the tenant to appear, and apply to the court to be admitted deft., instead of the casual ejector, within a certain time after the declaration is delivered; and the time when the notice should require the tenant to appear and make his application is regulated by the locality of the premises: Adams, 202. In a country ejectment, the notice should require the tenant to appear generally in the ensuing term, whether it be an issuable one or not: Tidd, 524; R. G. E. T. 2 G. 4, 4 Taunt. 738. In London or Middlesex, he should be required to appear on the first day of the term (not the essoign-day), or within the first four days of the term, and this should be strictly attended to: Str. 1049; Barnes, 175. It will, however, suffice, if the notice be to appear generally of the term, though indeed the tenant will then have the whole term to appear in: Adams, 203. The term should regularly be mentioned by a name, but if the notice and declaration otherwise show what term is meant, it will be immaterial: Adams, 203. The notice should be regularly subscribed with the name of the casual ejector, but it will suffice if it be subscribed with the plt.'s name: Barn. 173; 3 T. R. 351.

PLEA.] The general issue is, not guilty; it is not now customary to plead any other plea, 1 Chit. Pl. 442, though accord and satisfaction. was once permitted to be pleaded to this action, Peytoe's case, 9 Co. 77; and a plea to the jurisdiction has been allowed by permission of the court: Williams d. Johnson v. Keen, B. H. R. 197; Doe d. Morton v. Roe, 10 East, 523; Deun d. Wroot v. Fenn, 8 T. R. 474. The plea of ancient *demesne has also been allowed in this ac- [*452] tion, though not in general found: ib.; Doe d. Rust v. Roe, Burr. 1046; Brittle v. Dale, Salk. 158; 1 Ld. Raym. 43, s. c.

Precedents.

DECLARATION BY ORIGINAL ON A SINGLE DEMISE.

[ocr errors]

In the K. B. (or C. P.) Term, 9 Geo. 4. (Venue) (to wit.) Richard Roe was attached to answer John Doe of a plea, wherefore the said Richard Roe, with force and arms, &c., entered into (describe the premises sufficiently to cover those sought to be recovered; the description may be as follows:) 10 messuages, 10 dwellinghouses, 10 carcasses of buildings, 10 stables, 10 out-houses, 10 gardens, 10 yards, 10 orchards, 100 acres of arable land, 100 acres of meadow land, 100 acres of pasture land, 100 acres of land covered with water, and 100 acres of other land (see description of other premises and properly sought to be recovered; viz. a manor, reclory and lithe, common of pasture, tithes, &c., 2 Chil. Pl. 877-8, 886), with the appurtenances, situate in the parish of C. (ante, 450), in the county of D., which A. B. had demised to the said John Doe, for a term which is not yet expired, and ejected him from his said farm, and other wrongs to the said John Doe there did, to the great damage of the said John Doe, and against the peace of our lord the king, &c. And thereupon, the said John Doe, by his attorney, complains, that whereas A. B., on the day of —, A. D. (ante), at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, had demised the said tenements, with the appurtenances, to the said John Doe, to have and to hold the same to the said John Doe, and his assigns, from thenceforth, for and during, and unto the full end and term of seven (insert enough to cover time, when plt. will get final judgment) years, from thence next ensuing, and fully to be complete and VOL. I. 66

[ocr errors]

ended. By virtue of which said demise, the said John Doe entered into the said tenements, with the appurtenances, and became and was thereof possessed of the said term so to him thereof granted, as aforesaid; and the said John Doe, being so thereof possessed, the said Richard Roe, afterwards, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, with force and arms, &c., entered into the said tenements, with the appurtenances, which the said A. B. had demised to the said John Doe, in manner and for the term aforesaid, which is not yet expired, and ejected the said John Doe from his said farm, and other wrongs to the said John Doe then and there did, to the great damage of the said John Doe, and against the peace of our said lord the now king. Wherefore the said John Doe saith, that he is injured, and hath sustained damage to the value of £50; and therefore he brings his suit, &c.

Mr. C. D. (ante, 451.)

NOTICE TO APPEAR THERETO.

I am informed that you are in possession, or claim title to, the premises in this declaration of ejectment mentioned, or some part thereof; and I, being sued in this action as a casual ejector only, and having no claim or title to the same, do advise you to appear in next term (if in the country, or if in London or Middlesex, “on the first day of next term"), in his majesty's Court of King's Bench, wheresoever his said majesty shall then be in England (or, in the Common Pleas, " in his majesty's Court of Common Bench at Westminster "), by some attorney of that court, and then and there, by rule of the same court, to cause yourself to be made deft, in my stead; otherwise I shall suffer judgment therein to be entered against me by default, and you will be turned out of possession. Dated this day of A. D. 1828.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Yours, &c.

Richard Roe.

[*453]

DECLARATION BY ORIGINAL IN A DOUBLE DEMISE, WITH ONE OUSTER.
In the K. B. (or C. P.).

- Term, 9 Geo. 4. (Venue) (to wit.) Richard Roe was attached to answer John Doe of a plea, wherefore the said Richard Roe, with force and arms, &c., entered into 10 messuages, &c. (enumerate the premises sought to be recovered, which may be as supra), with the appurtenances, situate in the parish of C. (ante, 450), in the county of D., which A. B. had demised to the said John Doe for a term which is not yet expired; and, also, wherefore the said Richard Roe, with force and arms, &c., entered into 10 other messuages, &c. (enumerate the premises as before, adding the word "other" before each of such premises), with the appurtenances, situate in the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, which E. F. had demised to the said John Doe for a term which is not yet expired, and ejected him from his said several farms, and other wrongs to the said John Doe there did, to the great damage of the said John Doe, and against the peace of our lord the king. And thereupon the said John Doe, by -, his attorney, complains, that whereas the said A. B., on the - day of —, A. D. -, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, had demised the said tenements first above-mentioned, with the appurtenances, to the said John Doe, to have and to hold the same to the said John Doe and his assigns, from thenceforth for and during, and unto the full end and term of seven (insert enough to cover the time till plt. can get final judgment) years from thence next ensuing, and fully to be complete and ended ;* and also that whereas the said E. F., on the day of A. D. —, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, had demised the said tenements secondly above-mentioned, with the appurtenances, to the said John Doe, to have and to hold the same to the said John Doe and his assigns, from thenceforth, for, and during, and unto the full end and term of seven years from thence next ensuing, and fully to be complete and ended. By virtue of which said several demises, the said John Doe entered into the said several tenements above-mentioned, with the appurte nances, and became and was thereof possessed for the said several terms so to him thereof respectively granted, as aforesaid; and the said John Doe, being so thereof possessed, the said Richard Roc, afterwards, to wit, on the day of A. D., with force and arms, &c., entered into the said several tenements first above-mentioned, with the appurtenances, which the said A. B. and E. F. had respectively demised to the said John Doe, in manner and for the several terms aforesaid, which are not yet expired, and ejected the said John Doe from his said several farms, and other wrongs, &c. (Conclude as in the preceding precedent, and add the like notice to appear.)

THE LIKE, WITH TWO OUSTERS.

(Commencement as in the last precedent to *.) By virtue of which said demise the said John Doe entered into the said tenements first above-mentioned, with the appurtenances, and became and was thereof possessed for the said term so to him thereof granted. And the said John Doe, being so thereof possessed, the said Richard Roe, afterwards, to wit, on,

« PreviousContinue »