HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0807 and id is 1 raw text is: WARRENDER V. WARRENDER [1834].
who gave the same opinion to your Lordships, on the same grounds, I am bound to
give my own opinion, although it differs so widely from theirs: and is, therefore,
very likely to be wrong. I think that the writ of error ought to be allowed, and the
lessor of the plaintiff be found entitled to the postea, and to recover. But 1 think it
most probable that your Lordships may desire to have the case re-argued, considering
its great importance; and I humbly submit these observations to your Lordships,
but more particularly to my noble and learned friend (Lord Lyndhurst) who held
the Great Seal at the time when the case was heard.
Lord Lyndhurst.-This was a case which arose on the Northern Circuit. For the
purpose of raising the question of law for the opinion of the Court of King's Bench,
the parties agreed on a special verdict. The question was argued originally at great
length and with great learning by the present Lord Chief Justice of the Common
Pleas on the one side, and by counsel of great eminence on the other, and the Court
of King's Bench were unanimous in their opinion upon the case : however, in con-
sequence of the importance of the question, at the suggestion of the Lord Chief Justice
at the time, it was thought to be right to bring the question to your Lordships' House.
It [87] was again argued with great learning at your Lordships' bar. It was very
elaborately argued, and the learned ,Judges unanimously concurred in the decision
of the Court of King's Bench. However, my noble and learned friend has stated a
doubt with res)ect to the case: lie is of opinion that all the necessary views of the
subject were not taken in the argument, and that they were not sufficiently con-
sidered by the learned Judges at the time of the giving their advice to your Lordships.
Under these ci'icltistances I agree with my noble and learned friend, with a view
to settling the law uponi this subject, and with reference also to the importance of the
question, it inight be desirable that the case should again be arguled by counsel at
the bar, in sclh a waxy as your Lordshilps shall direct, in the presencte of the learned
Judges. That of course oust be next Session, as it will be impossible to call them
together this Session.
I might say that [ think sonue of the views put by my noble and learned friend
are very striking. ] have adverted to them myself over and over again in considering
the case; they require very full and patient consideration, and no pains should be
spared to arrive at the proper result; therefore, I should suggest the course which
I believe my noble and learned friend approves, that your Lordships should request
the learned Judges to attend here to hear the cause re-argued.
Lord Brougham.-My Lords, I am much better pleased that my noble and learned
friend should put it as he has done upon his judgment that the questions now raised
are worth consideration, than that it should proceed on any doubts entertained by me.
I should not think it right that I, who was [88] not judicially here when the case
was argued, should alone advise your Lorddhips.
Lord Denman.-My Lords, I think the importance of the case is ,,uch, and the
doubts which exist are so considerable, that they ought to be further investigated
before the case is determined by your Lordships.
Ordered to be further argued before the judges next Session, by one Counsel on
each side.
[89] SCOTLAND.
COURT OF SESSION.
The Honourable Dame ANNE BOSCAWEN or WAn1ENDER,-A4Jpcli,%nt; The
Right Honourable Sir GEOIGE WARRENDER, of Lochend, Bart.,--Resvon-
dent [1834].
[Mews' Dig. viii. 226. S.C. 2 CI. & F. 488. Among the numerous cases in which
Warrender v. Warrender is dealt with, it may suffice to refer to Jarvey v'. Farnie,
1880-82, 8 A. C. 43; and Le Mesurier v. Le Mesumier, [1895] A. C. 517, where
1227
IX BLIGH N. S,](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0807&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)