Gresham and Beresford were joint tenants of a house in London which Beresford kept his goods.
Beresford was indebted to Semayne and judgment was entered against him for the sum due.
He soon afterwards died but Gresham continued to occupy the house and Semayne issued execution on his judgment against the goods of Beresford.
The sheriff of London came to the house to serve the execution but Gresham shut the door before the sheriff entered and would not allow him access to view and appraise the goods.
As a result Semayne sued Gresham for disturbing his execution.
"The action does not lie; for Gresham has done nothing but what he may lawfully justify, that is shut his own doors. Although the execution had been for the debt of Gresham, yet before the sheriff's entry into the house it had been lawful for him to shut the door for, unless it is upon the Queen's suit, for the contempt of the party, it is not lawful for the sheriff to enter the house unless it is open"
Judgment by Fenner: "If the sheriff himself might have entered, yet it is not lawful to bring a jury into the house to praise the goods; for it was very inconvenient to have so large a company in a house, and might be prejudicial to the party, by the loss of the goods"
Popham J and others disagreed: "because by this means justice is hindered; for execution is the effect of the whole suit; and if execution cannot be made, but is prevented by this means, then it will be in vain to sue; and therefore he conceived the decision in the Year Book case in 18 Ed.II Execution, is better law than 18 Ed.IV and he was of opinion that upon an execution between party and party, the sheriff might enter and break the door"
Fenner Justice: "that if the sheriff might by law in such case break the house, then also clearly the action does not lie; for then, although Gresham shut the door of the house, it was the sheriff's fault that he did not break it:"
Judgment was given against the plaintiff by the whole court.
"Action upon the case; supposing, that one G. Berisford was indebted unto him for £200 and that he sued execution, and the sheriffs of London, by force of that writ, impanelled a jury, to enquire what goods there were and that there were divers goods of the said G. Berisford in such a house in London; and that the sheriff came with the said jury, to have a view of them, and to appraise and seize them for this debt; and that the defendant, praewmissorum non ignarus, shut the door, and disturbed him to make execution...
Sir Edward Coke made the most detailed version of the Semayne judgment and contained an extended analysis of the right of entry as it developed in 1604 setting the English common law on bailiff's right of entry and little has changed since over the last four centuries.
The Semayne case is the origin of the modern phrase "A man's house is his castle"...
See also: Judgment of Semayne's case Coke's version