Alchin v Wells
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 November 1793 |
| Date | 26 November 1793 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 265
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Distinguished, R. v. Rabinson, 1835, 2 C. M. & R. 336. Applied, Chapman v. Bowlby, 1841, 8 M. & W. 251. Explained, Harding v. Hall, 1866, 14 L. T. 410. Discussed and distinguished, Sneary v. Abdy, 1876, 1 Ex. D. 302; Roe v. Hammond, 1877, 2 C. P. D. 305. Referred to, Mortimore v. Cragg, 1878, 3 C. P. D. 220. Recognised, In re Thomas [1899], 1 Q. B. 462.
alchin against wells. Tuesday, Nov. 26th, 1793. If a sheriff levy under a fi. fa. he is entitled to poundage, though the parties compromise before he sells any of the defendant's goods. If after such a compromise either party rule the sheriff to return the writ, the Court will discharge that rule with costs, to be paid by the party obtaining it. [2 Mar. 330. 4 M. & S. 256.] [Distinguished, R. v. Edbinson, 1835, 2 C. M. & E. 336. Applied, Chapman v. Bowlby, 1841, 8 M. & W. 251. Explained, Harding v. Hall, 1866, 14 L. T. 410. Discussed and distinguished, Sneary v. Aldy, 1876, 1 Ex. D. 302; Roe v. Hammond, 1877, 2 C. P. D. 305. Eeferred to, Mortimwe v. Cragg, 1878, 3 C. P. D. 220. Eecognised, In re Thomas [1899], 1 Q. B. 462.] The plaintiff in this case, having obtained judgment, sued out a fieri facias and delivered it to the sheriff, who levied on the defendant's goods; and, after being in possession two days, the plaintiff and defendant compromised before the sheriff sold any of the defendant's goods. The sheriff, before he quitted possession, satisfied himself for the poundage on the debt, amounting to 81. Afterwards the plaintiff ruled the sheriff to return the writ; to discharge which rule [471] Gibbs moved...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Incorporated Trustees of the Lower Bay School v Ollivierre, Peters and Rotary Club of Bequia
...yearly tenancy can also be drawn from the rent which was to be paid yearly, see: Richardson v. Gifford 110 ER 1127; and Doe D. Rime v. Bell 101 ER 265 22 Messrs. Boilers and Williams next submitted that pursuant to paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 1 of the Limitation Act the tenancy from year to ......
-
Re Purcell
...300. Mortimore v. Cragg 3 C. P. Div. 216. Yates v. Meehan 11 Ir. C. L. K. App. 1. Royle v. BusbyELR 6 Q. B. Div. 171. Alchin v. WellsENR 5 T. R. 470. Chapman v. BowlbyENR 8 M. & W. 249. In re Craycrof 8 Ch. Dir. 596. Sheriff — Fees — Sale under fi. fa. partially abortive — Part only of good......
-
Chapman v Bowlry
...a compromise between the parties, upon which the sheriff withdraws, he is nevertheless entitled to his poundage : Alchin v. Wells (5 T. R. 470). The second writ was therefore irregular, the first not having been returned. The cases cited by Mr. Knowles are distinguishable. The rule must the......
-
Marshall, Esquire, against Hicks
...seizure, wholly independent of the sale : for the sheriff is entitled to them although there be a compromise before sale ; Alchin v. WeUs (5 T. R. 470): or although the execution be set aside for irregularity; Rawsiwne v, Wilkinson (4 M. & S. 256). He was therefore at common law bound to se......