Anonymous
Published: 2013-09
Total Pages: 238
Get eBook
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1858 edition. Excerpt: ...Com. Dig. " Grant" (G. 11), 17 Vin. Ab. " Prerogative" (G. c.), pl. 5. The rule is said to be true where both intent inure and work against the King, but where one intent serves for his benefit, it is otherwise. Englefield's case, ' 17 Vin. Ab. "Prerogative" (G. 1). All the instances given, are where something was claimed by the grantee by implication from the intent of the King, and not where anything was claimed by the King: in fact, the meaning of the rule is that nothing shall pass from the King by implication. Admitting however that the King has in general no right of entry by law, still in-the case of Lyddall v. VVeston, so much relied on, Lord Hardwicke expressly says that where mines are once opened the Crown can restrain the owner of the soil from working them, and can either work them itself or grant a license to others to do so. And in Clavering v. (Jlavering,1 it was held that a tenant for life might open new shafts or pits for the purpose of working old mines. In the present case, the mine was opened before the license to the defendants, and all they did was for the purpose of working the old mine. M'Manon against Brwron. No question can arise upon the statute of limitations if the defendants' construction of the grant is correct; for if-the exception is good, the mines have always remained the property, and been in the posession of the Crown, though it may have been out of possession of the surface of the soil more than sixty years. _ The objection that the license is void for not reciting the prior grant is not sustained by the case cited for it--Wing v. Harris2--for there both grants were of the same land: here the grant and the lease are of difierent properties....