Abbildungen der Seite

deed : that a common recovery was accordingly suf-
fered of one hundred acres of land lying in Rippon :
that the tenant in tail had no lands in the vill of Rip.
pon, and that the intention of the parties was, that
all the lands in the parish of Rippon should pass. It
was argued, that the common law knows no such
division of the kingdom as parishes, but only the
division of vills; and therefore where a place is named
in a record, and no more said, it is always intended
a vill ; consequently, that the recovery, if it passed
any lands at all, could only pass those in the vill.
But the Court were of opinion, that the recovery
should extend to the lands in the parish of Rippon :
1st. Because otherwise the recovery would be void, it
being found that the tenant in tail had no lands in the
vill of Rippon. 2dly, Because it plainly appeared to
be the intention of the parties that this should be in-
tended the parish of Rippon, not because the jury
had found it, (for the Judges said they would pay no
attention to that), but because it appeared by the
bargain and sale to be the intention of the parties
that the recovery should extend to all the lands in the
parish of Rippon, and not be confined to the lands in
the vill of Rippon ; for the bargain and sale and
recovery were to be considered as one assurance..
And although a place spoken of simply is in law in-
tended a vill, and stabitur presumptio donec probetur
in contrarium, yet here was sufficient proof of the
intention of the parties.

21. In a writ of error from a judgment on scire Massey v. facias in the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, brought Kice,

Cowper, 340. to reverse four common recoveries in the Court of Common Pleas there, two of lands in the county of Limerick, and two of lands in the city of Limerick, Mr. Buller for the plaintiff in error objected, that


the several descriptions in all the four recoveries were bad. There were fourteen parcels in each re. covery; and the principal objections to them were, 1st. As to the premises in the county, because some were demanded thus, “all those the castle, town, and lands of, &c. containing by estimation so many acres,” without setting out the quality of the lands; that a recovery could not be suffered of a town, and that so many acres by estimation was uncertain. 2d. That others were described thus, “all that part of the town and lands, &c. now or late in the tenure of A. B.” which was vague and uncertain. 3d. That two parcels were described as “containing a ploughland,” which was also vague and uncertain. In respect of the premises in the city, he objected, that they were all demanded by the description of “ messuage or tenement,” which was uncertain, and also as being said to be “nów or late in the tenure, &c.” He insisted that a recovery has no effect until execution, therefore the description of the premises should be so certain that the sheriff may know how to execute it, and if bad in ejectment, a fortiori in a præcipe. Mr. Alleyne for the defendant in error, said, he should consider, 1st, What degree of precision was required by the register to the description of lands demanded in a præcipe quod reddat. 2dly, What indulgence was to be given to a common recovery, as a conveyance and common assurance. 3dly, Whether from the locality of these particular lands the descriptions were not sufficient. 1st, It was a general rule, that the form of the register must be followed ; but there were cases that admitted of a deviation from it. The general principle upon which all forms were founded and upheld, was, that the defendant might know what he was to defend ; and therefore whenever the term

used, either in respect of the quantity or the quality, 1 Rol. Rep. was sufficiently certain and notorious to answer that 165. purpose, it would be good, though not particularly named in the register. 2dly, Great favour was to be shown to common recoveries, because they were now a species of conveyance and common assurance of land. They were not like the cases cited, most of which were cases in ejectment, which are adversary suits, and where the objections arose in consequence of some essential defect, which was fatal. But a common recovery was in the nature of an amicable suit, which admitted of a greater latitude; and any description that would be good in a deed, would be good in 5 Rep. 40. a common recovery. 3dly, With regard to the local Poph. 22. . situation of lands in Ireland, it had always been understood that the Judges of Ireland knew the description of lands in that country better than the Judges here, and therefore credit ought to be given to their knowledge. It was expressly held in 2 Roll. Rep. 166. 1 Stra. 71. and 1 Burr. 623; which last case in principle answered all the objections that had been made. Another argument arose upon the statutes of jeofails, which was, that, being after verdict, they were now too late. As to the objections made to the particular descriptions of these lands-1st, The word “town” in Ireland did not mean, as it does here, houses inhabited, but was merely a technical description of a particular district, and is notorious there. 2dly, With respect to the uncertainty of “so many acres by estimation,” it was sufficient if the general boundary was known; it was not necessary that the precise measure should be accurately and exactly ascertained : and as to the term “land,” in legal acceptation it always meant arable. 3dly, The term “mes. suage of tenement” does not stand alone, but is

accompanied with other words descriptive of its situation, which render it sufficiently certain for the sheriff to deliver possession; besides, it was the same description that was used in the deed of settlement by which the estate was entailed; therefore, even if

the descriptions were more doubtful, the Court 2 Mod. 233. would make such a construction as would support


Lord Mansfield. The consequences of those objections are so great; they are so void of the least glimmering of reason and common sense ; and it would be attended with such vast inconveniences to the public in many cases, without a possibility of doing good in any, if in common recoveries, which are a species of conveyance and common assurance, such nice exceptions were to prevail; that the strictest proof of their being founded in law is necessary to induce the Court to overturn à recovery on such grounds. By the settled law of the land, men by deeds fetter their estates; but tenant in tail when of age may unfetter them, observing a certain form. In this case there can be no doubt of the meaning of the tenant in tail, or his power, to unfetter the estate. The only question is, whether he has done it agreeable to the proper form; that is, whether he has described the premises with sufficient certainty. Now the description which he has used, is the identical descrip. tion in the deed which created the fettering; and the objection which is made, is not so much that that description is uncertain; as that six or seven hundred years ago, in an adverse action, there was a doubt whether such an objection would not have lain ; and therefore the defendant would make the same objec

tion and raise the same doubt now. But a common ;. recovery is not an adverse action. It is said that “all


that messuage or tenement with the appurtenances, situate in the lane between the two abbey-gates, now or late in occupation of J. C. his under-tenants or assigns, in the county of the city of Limerick,” is too vague

and uncertain. But one must look with a mi. croscopic eye to discover, that a messuage or tenement, &c. is so uncertain a description, as that the sheriff, or any other person, could not know how to find the premises by it; and the objection can only be made by a person who pores over the syllables of the words. : The objections are of two sorts, and I have no doubt as to either. 1st, That the premises in the county are demanded thus : “ all those the castle, town, and lands, containing by estimation, &c.;" which it is argued is uncertain both in respect of quality and quantity. As to that, it is admitted that “castleis a good description in England. “ Town,” was determined to be a good description in Cottingham v. King, 1 Burr. 623.; and “land,means arable land. The next objection is, that the premises in the city are described thus: “all that messuage or tenement, with a garden or meadow thereto belonging, situate, &c. and now or late in the occupation of, &c.” which it has been contended would be a bad description in ejectment. There are many cases in ejectment which have

gone very far indeed ; and therefore the doctrine of those cases ought not be extended. As to the authority in 3 Wils. 23, which would have great weight on account of its being so recent, the Judges in that case decided against their own private opinion and inclination, because they held themselves bound by authority. But there the words were only messuage or tenement, without any other description. Here there are other words, “with the appurtenances

« ZurückWeiter »