Case ID: nc_1/html/0146-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Doderidge, J. \n      Crew, C. J. \n      Jones, J. \n      Crew, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Abdee’s case.
    Trin. 2 Car.
    TENANT in fee granted a rent for life, and made a lease for years of the land: the grantee supposing that he had lost the deed, and that it had fallen into the hands of the lessee, sued him for the rent.
   Doderidge, J.

If the lessee for twenty one years, grants a

rent for life, it is good during the term, and it is a chattel.

Crew, C. J.

I would not trust it in the court of requests.....

Jones, J.

.... to sue for the rent, on the supposition that the deed is lost. For it is contrary to a main principle of law. And when the lessee, as here, denies the truth of the fact, they ought not to proceed over.

Crew, C. J.

concurred. It is an encroachment on the court of Chancery, to give remedy when the deed is lost.

Per totam curiam. A suit may be brought there for the deeds; bur not for the rent or annuity.

Doderidge, J. I knew a bill thrown out of court brought by the devisee of a rent seck. M. 3 Car. B. A. Miller sued in the Court of Requests, because he had lost his bond: and a prohibition was granted, although it was said at the bar, that the grantee of the rent seck, who had lost his bond, was relieved in Chancery.

Jones, J. There is a great difference between the court of Chancery and that of Requests. C. L. 147.