Case ID: h-mch_1/html/0089-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

OCTOBER TERM, 1737.
    William Brent’s Lessee against Benjamin Tasker.
    EJECTMENT for a tract of land lying in the Isle of Kent, in Queen Anne’s County.
    It appeared, from the special verdict found in the cause, that the land in question was, on the 7th of September, 1640, patented to Giles Brent, and from him descended to his son and heir Giles Brent, who was, during all the time of his life, an inhabitant and resident in the colony of Virginia. That after his death the land descended to his son and heir Giles Brent, who always afterwards was an inhabitant of and resident in the same colony, and there, at about the age of thirty years, died intestate and without issue, whereby the land descended to his heir at law William Brent, an infant of the age of sixteen years, who then was and continued to be an inhabitant of and resident in the said colony of Virginia until he attained the age of twenty-five years, when he departed from thence and went to Great Britain, where he died intestate and without issue born, leaving his wife privily with child of William Brent, the lessor of the plaintiff, who was born three months after the death of his father, to wit, on the 6th of March, 1709. That the same William, from the time of his birth, has always been an inhabitant and resident in the kingdom of Great Britain and the colony of Virginia.
    It appeared that the defendant, and those under whom he claimed, and whose estate he held, had been in the full, quiet, peaceable and uninterrupted possession of the land in dispute for forty years.
    The defendant’s counsel moved for a new trial, alleging, that the words son and heir of the vendee from Fitzherhert and rvife, were struck out of the special verdict by the Jury, though these words were not particularly objected against by the counsel for the plaintiff; which motion was overruled by the Court, because one of the counsel for the plaintiff, just a little before the Jury went from the bar, said there were several things mentioned in the special verdict which he did not look upon to be material, and that the Jury might strike them out or leave them in as they thought proper, which was not objected against by the defendant’s counsel.
    Cummings, for plaintiff.
    Dulany, for defendant.
    Judgment upon the special verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed.
    Lib. E. J. No. 4. fol. 1.
   The Court of Appeals, at November Term, 1738, affirmed the judgment of the Provincial Court. The defendant then appealed to the King in Council.

Dulany, for defendant. (Short notes.)

1. Misbehaviour of the Jury. What circumstances will set aside a verdict. 1 Vent. 124.

2. The oath of the bailiff, and the use and intent of it.

3. Limitations. Vide 21 Jac. cap. 16. Extra mare« The statute is general, and must work upon all cases which are not excepted by the exception. Salk. 420. pi. 1. Twenty years possession is a good title. Salk. 421, pi. 5. The plea of limitations is favoured, Salk. 421. pi. 6. In ejectment the action at an end quoad the possession when the term expires. 3 Mod. 249. 1 Inst. 285 a. The term caimot be enlarged without consent. Salk. 257. pi. 8., See Bro,, Readings on the Statute of Limitations, 110. Jenk. 43. 48-. 2-11<-