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/ssactsengr0320 and id is 1 raw text is: FRIAR V. GREY
in substance states, that in a plaint brought by the present defendant against the
present plaintiff in the county court, the present plaintiff intended to set off the debt
alleged to be due to him, and gave notice to the present defendant; but by the 76th
section of the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, the then defendant should have given such notice
to the clerk of the county court, and not to the then plaintiff. No sufficient notice,
therefore, having been given in pursuance of the provisions of the Act, the adjudication
of the county court is of no avail to the present defendant.
In the next place, the second plea is bad. The defence is founded upon the judg-
ment of the county court on the set off, but no action could be maintained upon such
a judgment. It therefore cannot be considered as a debt. The plea is also bad, as it
does not shew that the county court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
plea. It [583] does not even appear that the Court was established under and in
pursuance of the 9 & 10 Viet. c. 95. The rule is, that in all proceedings in inferior
courts it is necessary to shew that the matter adjudicated upon was within 'the
jurisdiction of the particular Court.
Bovill contrA. The first plea is good, and the replication to it is bad. The judg-
ment of a county court, being a court of record, is conclusive. The mere fact that
the notice is not sufficient does not invalidate the whole proceeding. It was held in
Eastrnure v. Laws (5 Bing. N. C. 444), that when a verdict is found against a defendant
on a plea of set off, he is estopped from suing the plaintiff for the demand specified in
the plea of set off. [Alderson, B. In the county court there is no plea of set off,
but the notice only. There has been no notice here, and therefore the matter has
never been properly in issue, and a jury would not be warranted in finding a verdict
upon the matter.]
Secondly, the last plea is good. The defendant relies upon the judgment of a
Court of record, which is primA facie good, and it lies upon the plaintiff to impeach it.
The plea is by way of estoppel, and it is therefore not necessary to set out the
jurisdiction of the Court.
ALDERSON, B. The plaintiff is entitled to judgment on the demurrer to the
replication to the first plea, and on the demurrer to the second plea; but the defendant
way have liberty to amend the second plea, as he ought to have an opportunity of
pleading the set-off. The objections to that plea, which are made the subject of special
demurrer, are good, as it is necessary for a party who relies upon the decision of an
inferior tribunal to shew that the proceedings were within the jurisdiction of the
Court. The defendant may, therefore, amend within a week; otherwise there will be
Judgment for the plaintiff.
[684] FRIAR v. GREY AND OTHERS. July 8, 1850.-The plaintiff demised to the
defendant.a coal mine for forty-two years, at a certain yearly rent. The lease
contained numerous covenants on the part of the lessee for payment of rent, and
in respect of the working of the mine, &c., with a proviso for re-entry on breach
of any of them ; and also a proviso, that if the lessees should be desirous to quit
the premises at the end of the first eight years of the term, and of such their
desire should give the lessor notice in writing eighteen calendar months before
the expiration of such eighth year, then, all arrears of rent being paid, and all
and singular the covenants and agreements on the part of the lessee having been
observed and performed, the lease should, at the expiration of the eighth year,
be utterly void; but, nevertheless, without prejudice to any claim or remedy
which any of the parties might then be entitled to for breach of any of the
covenants :-Held, in the Exchequer Chamber, (reversing the judgment of the Court
of Exchequer), that the performance of all the covenants by the lessee was a
condition precedent to his right to determine the lease.
[S. C. 19 L. J. Ex. 368; 1-5 Jur. 814: affirmed, 1854, 4 H. L. C. 564.
Considered, Bastin v. Bidwell, 1881, 18 Ch. D. 248.]
Covenant on an indenture of lease, by the devisee of the reversion against the
lessees. Breach, non-payment of rent.
The plea commenced by setting out on oyer the indenture, whereby John Friar,
the plaintiff's testator, demised to the defendants a certain colliery, coal mine, and
seam and seams of coal, as well opened as not opened, with liberty to dig pits, shafts,
5 EX. 583.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0320&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)