Carlisle Patriot December 27th, 1844 Court Of Exchequer - Doe v.Robinson

Court Of Exchequer - Doe v.Robinson

Carlisle Patriot - December 27th, 1844

COURT OF EXCHEQUER _____   DOE v. ROBINSON v. BOUSFIELD _____         This case, it will be  remembered, was tried at Appleby, at the last assizes, when a verdict was  returned for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court upon certain  questions of the law, or vital importance to this county.       ROBINSON, or rather "the East  Stainmore Mining Company," whom he represented, claimed, under a lease for  twelve years, the custom of the Manor of Brough in which the premises are  situated, allowing only for a lease of three years, without the license of the  lord of the manor. No license has been granted in this case.       Mr. Atkinson, at the trial  contended that the lease might be void or voidable, as against the lord of the  manor, but, as between all other parties, it was a good and valid lease for  twelve years.       Sir F. POLLOCK, C. D., reserved  leave for the defendant to enter a nonsuit accordingly. To shew that the lease  was void, as between these parties, he relied upon the case of ----v. NEAL, Cro.  Jae. 395, and Com. Dig. Cop. k. 3. 1.       The Court after a fortnight's  consideration, have confirmed the arguments for the plaintiff, and have  pronounced the lease valid as between these parties for the full period of  twelve years.       The practical inference of this  case is this, viz. - that in manors where a license is said to be required by a  custom to make a lease valid, that means, as against the lord of the manor, and  those claiming under him, but that, as between all other parties a license is  not indispensably necessary.       Messrs. WILSON and SCOTT were  attorneys for the plaintiff, and Mr. WEYMSS for the defendant.     ************************

 

< Prev		Next >