Note and Comment

Authors

Joseph H. Drake, University of Michigan Law School
Frederick R. Shearer, University of Michigan Law School
Jack M. Hendrick, University of Michigan Law School
Peter Balkema, University of Michigan Law School
Wilson W. Mills, University of Michigan Law School

Abstract

Pecote: A Bit of Legal Archaeology - -In the case of Pusey v. Pusey, I Vern. 273 (1684), the "bil was, that a -horn, which time out of mind had gone along with the plaintiff's estate, and was delivered, to his ancestors in ancient times to hold their land by, might be delivered to him; upon which horn was the inscription, viz. pecote this horn to hold huy thy land." The bill was demurred to in that the plaintiff did not by his bill pretend to be entitled to this horn, either as executor or devisee; nor had he in his bill charged it to be an heir loonte. The demurrer was overruled and defendant ordered to pay the costs. This is frequently cited is a leading case and stands for the proposition that a chattel of unique value may be recovered in a suit in equity.

Recommended Citation

Joseph H. Drake, Frederick R. Shearer, Jack M. Hendrick, Peter Balkema & Wilson W. Mills, Note and Comment, 11 Mich. L. Rev. 506 (1913).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol11/iss7/1