A Practical and Elementary Abridgment of the Cases Argued and Determined in the Courts of King's Bench, Common Pleas, Exechequer, and at Nisi Prius; And of the Rules of Court, from the Restoration in 1660, to Michaelmas Term, 4 Volume 15 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1832 edition. Excerpt: ...rent, which was said to have been apportioned out of a larger rent, but such an apportionment was not evidenced by any existing deed, but only by presumptive evidence, it was held that the purchaser was not bound to accept the title; Burn well v. Harris, 1 Taunt. 434. Where the objection to a title was, that it was doubtful whether the wife of a party to a deed thirty years old was barred by that deed of her dower, it was held that it was no answer to prove upon the trial that the wife was dead, no such proof having been given before; Wildo v. Fort, 4 Taunt. 334. It seems to be quite settled that a court of law will take notice of equitable objections to titles; it would be fruitless to compel the defendant to pay money which a court of equity will order him to refund; Maberly v. Robins, 1 Marsh, 258; 6 Taunt. 625; and per Lord Alvanley, in Elliott v. Edwards, 3 B. & P. 181. In the case of Alpass v. Watkins, 8 T. R. 516. Lord Kenyon held that a court of law could not enter into equitable objections to a title where the purchaser is plaintiff; where the words of the condition were, that the vendor should make a good title, it was held that he must make out a title good both at law and in equity, Malberly v. Bobins, 1 Marsh, 258; for the question is, whether the condition has been complied with. The nlaintiff must prove his title to the property sold; and if he produces his title deeds at the trial in proof of his title, it seems that it will not be necessary for him to call the subscribing witnesses; Sugd. V. &. P. 216; 2 Phil. Ev. 99; Thompson v. Miles, 1 Esp. 185; sed vide Crosby v. Percy, 1 Campb. 304. contra; in which it was holden by Mansfield, C. J., that the remote assignee of a term cannot prove his interest without proving the...