Dunchurch v South Kilworth 1766 |
|
| The following Easter Term 1766 legal case, Dunchurch v South Kilworth, involved Elizabeth Tansur, wife of Edward Tansur: Source: Reports of Cases Determined in the Several Courts of Westminster Hall from 1746 to 1779 by The Honourable Sir William Blackstone, Knt. One of the Justices of The Court of Common Pleas: With Memoirs of his Life. Revised and corrected, with copious notes and references, including some from the MSS. of the late Mr Serjt. Hill: by Charles Heneage Elsley, Esq of The Middle Temple, Barrister at Law. In 2 volumes. Vol. 1 London: S. Sweet, 3 Chancery Lane; R. Pheney, 17 Fleet Street; A. Maxwell, 21 and Stevens & Sons, 39 Bell Yard, Lincoln's Inn; Law Booksellers and Publishers: and R. Milliken, Grafton Street, Dublin. 1828. Easter Term 1766: Dunchurch v South Kilworth S.C Burr. Sett. Case 553 Elizabeth Tansur was removed from South Kilworth to Dunchurch. Order confirmed at Leicester Sessions, stating, "That Edward Tansur, the pauper's husband, was certified from Dunchurch to South Kilworth, where he resided with his wife and family till his death. It appeared by parol evidence of the pauper and her son (which was objected to by the respondents' counsel), that twenty-five years ago, the pauper and her said husband were joint purchasors of a house, etc at S. Kilworth, for £19; that Edward Tansur laid out about £15 more to repair it, and built a new shop, and was taxed at the value of £30, and resided therein to his death; after which the pauper continued ten months in possession, and then went to service for five years, and let the premisses to her son for 20s. a year, but declared that she could have let it to other persons for 30s.: That the pauper when she left her service about three years ago, returned to her house at S. Kilworth, and soon after sold the garden place for £20 3s. 6d., and, by deed of gift, gave her son Walter part of the yard to build a house upon. By feoffment*, 8th November 1763, in consideration of natural affection and £10, she granted the residue of the premisses to her son Edward, to the uses following; viz. As to two chambers, to the use of herself, for life sans waste, remainder to Edward in fee; and as to the residue to the use of Edward in fee: and Edward covenanted to keep the whole in repair. The pauper continued to dwell in her own part of the house, till she applied for relief; and being told, that she could not be removed to Dunchurch, while she lived on her own freehold, she went out of her house for a little time, and went to her daughter's house in the same parish, and set her own chambers to her son for 6d. a year ; and was relieved at her daughter's house by the parish officers about a week, and was then removed." Lord Mansfield, C.J. - The whole turns on the simple point, whether this was a purchase for £30. [There is] no room for the presumption that it came by descent, for the contrary is found. There was no fraud in removing from her house. It was necessary to be done, else she could have had no relief(n): she must have sold her freehold. As for the Case of All Saints and Bengoe, which was cited to shew that money afterwards expended shall be reckoned as part of the purchase, no determination was ever had thereon. And I cannot conceive such an interpretation can be put on the statute. If subsequent events, and money afterwards laid out, are to be taken in, all the uncertainty would ensue which was intended to be remedied. Yet no doubt but the payment of a fine or money borrowed upon mortgage is part of the purchase-money. WILMOT, J.—A joint purchase is a purchase of the entirety to the husband and wife. We must not enter upon questions of real value. The only touchstone is, was £30 bona fide paid? Subsequent improvements can have no retrospective operation. As long as she continued in her chamber, the parish need not relieve her. Therefore she very properly went out of it. And undoubtedly she might be removed from the parish, not residing in the house which was her own. Yates, J. and Aston, J. are of the same opinion. Orders confirmed. To summarise: Subsequent improvements by a certificate - man no part of the
purchase money. *in English law, the granting of a free inheritance of land (fee simple) to a man and his heirs.
17/03/2008
|