1455.097 |
1455 |
Common Pleas |
Praecipe quod reddat |
Praecipe quod reddat |
Mich. |
34 |
Hen. 6 |
31 |
16b-17a |
Littleton, Thomas Sjt (for Ds)
Nedeham, John Sjt Nedham
Danby, Robert JCP
Moyle, Walter JCP Moile
Danby, Robert JCP
Prysot, John CJCP Prisoit
Prysot, John CJCP Prisot
Moyle, Walter JCP Moile
Newton, Richard CJCP1439-1448 (mentioned in cross-reference)
Prysot, John CJCP Prisot
Newton, Richard Sjt1425-1439 (mentioned in cross-reference)
Brown, Thomas, Clerk of CP (mentioned in cross-reference) |
|
|
|
|
Fitzherbert Mayntenaunce de briefe 28 (not 23)
Brooke Maintenance de brefe 2, Travers per sans ceo 28 |
18 Hen. 6, per Newton CJCP, probably 1440.051 = Mich. 19 Hen. 6, pl. 33, fol. 12b-14b
1431.026 = Pasch. 9 Hen. 6, pl. 4, fol. 1b-2a, per Newton Sjt and Brown, Clerk of CP |
|
Praecipe quod reddat fuit porte envers iv persons, & ii auterfois fecerunt defaut: purque issuist un |
44 |
(Previously, two tenants (defendants) defaulted and the other two tenants appeared..
Grand cape issued agains the two tenants who defaulted.
The two tenants who appeared had Idem dies.)
The two tenants who had previously appeared now appeared again and pleaded that they held jointly with a stranger not named in the writ, denying that the other two tenants who had previously defaulted had anything (in the land in demand).
Demandant (plaintiff) replied that all four tenants (defendants) named in the writ held (the land in demand) in joint tenancy as the writ supposed.
Danby JCP told demandant to deny that the other stranger held anything (in the land).
Moyle JCP and Prysot CJCP argued that demandant need not deny this.
Prysot CJCP said that the writ would not abate. |
distinction between joint tenancy and tenancy in common (?)
see 18 Hen. 6 (probably 1440.051 = Mich. 19 Hen. 6, pl. 33, fol. 12b-14b), it was said that it was held by Newton CJCP1439-1448 that if a tenant plead joint tenancy with a stranger, denying that the other who is named (in the writ) had anything, etc. and the other plead such a plea, or nontenure, or any other such plea that goes to the writ, in this case it is sufficient (assez) for the demandant to maintain his writ and he need not (ne besongne) to traverse to say 'denying that the stranger had anything', because the tenant who pleaded joint tenancy alleged a denial (Sans ceo), etc. and it is sufficient for the demandant to answer to this, etc., as above
but see Pasch. 9 Hen. 6, fol. 1 (1431.026 = Pasch. 9 Hen. 6, pl. 4, fol. 1b-2a), in Praecipe quod reddat against two and one pleaded nontenure, and the other pleaded joint tenancy with one A., denying that he who pleaded nontenture had anything; Sjt Newton (Sjt1425-1439): to this we say that those two alone are tenants as the writ supposes, denying that A. ever had anything, etc., this issue was taken by the court an admitted, and entered by Brown, Clerk of CP
query, and see the distinction by Prysot CJCP |
|
|
in 1455.097 = Mich. 34 Hen. 6, pl. 31, fol. 16b-17a: see 18 Hen. 6, it was said that it was held by Newton CJCP1439-1448 that if a tenant plead joint tenancy with a stranger, denying that the other who is named (in the writ) had anything, etc. and the other plead such a plea, or nontenure, or any other such plea that goes to the writ, in this case it is sufficient (assez) for the demandant to maintain his writ and he need not (ne besongne) to traverse to say 'denying that the stranger had anything', because the tenant who pleaded joint tenancy alleged a denial (Sans ceo), etc. and it is sufficient for the demandant to answer to this, etc., as above
|
|
Person
Default
Issuance
Grand Cape
Part
Appearance
Idem Dies
Pleading
Joint Tenancy
Stranger
Name
Day
(Purchase Of Writ)
Denial
Sans Ceo
Supposition
Demand
Judgment
Sufficiency (assez)
Need (besongne)
Plea
Maintenance Of Writ
Rien Avoit
Finding
Case
Abatement
Posito
Sole Tenancy
Sole Tenant
Entirety
Pleading In Bar
Bar
Taking
Peril
Joinder
Joinder In Plea
Irrelevance
Relevance
N' est A Purpos
A Purpos
Purpose
Receipt
Averment
Tenant In Common
Accord
Agreement
Contradiction (contradicunt)
Answer
Joint Tenant
Good Writ
Recovery
Assize
Issue
In Issue
Putting In Issue
In Vain
Cause
Seeming
Nontenure
Companion
Sight
Holding
Plea To The Writ
Sufficient Case
Traverse
Allegation
Denial
Sans Ceo
Admittance
Admission
Entry
Entry Of Plea
Query
Distinction |
|