Amey v Long
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 December 1808 |
| Date | 04 December 1808 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 847
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS.
S. C. 1 Camp. 14. Subsequent proceedings and annotations, East, 473.
[116] in michaelmas term, 48 geo. III. [1807]. Dec. 4, 1808.* amey v long. (A person in possession of any paper, who is served with a subpoena, duces tecum, is bound to produce it, whether the paper belongs to him or not ) [8. C. 1 Camp. 14. Subsequent proceedings and annotations, East, 473.] This was an action on the case The declaration stated, That the plaintiff had sued out a writ of fieri facias, indorsed to levy on the goods of one Samuel Glover, directed to the sheriff of Surry, and upon which he had returned nulla bona that an action was brought against the sheriff' for a false return thereon : that it became necessary to produce the warrant to levy under such fieri facia* that the defendant, who was an officer of the sheriff of Surry, had been [117] subpoenaed as a witness on such trial, with notice to produce the warrant whereon such levy was to be made that he did not produce such warrant, by reason whereof the plaintiff was nonsuited, and forced to pay costs, &c. The ptaintiff produced office copies of the judgments in the original action of Amey v. Glover, and that of Amey v. Smith, sheriff of Surry. lu the former the judgment was stated to be against Samuel Glover, jun This was objected to as a variance Lord. Ellenborough said, That as there was but one action, there was no ambiguity , if there had been another cause of the same name it might be fatal. The subpoana had been directed to Long and Grace, and they were called upon by it to produce their, or either of their warrants, and all papers, &c The warrant had been directed by the sheriff to Grace only; Grace had no house, but Long had a lock-up house, and it was used by Grace, who brought to it such persons as he arrested. A person who had been arrested by Giace, and locked up at Long's house, saw on a file there, the warrant in question A witness also swore, That he had a conversation with the defendant, and aaked him, Why he did not produce the warrant ? that he did not deny having it, but said he would nonsuit the plaintiff in this action as he had done in the other. [118] The Attorney-General, for the defendant, contended, That the action could not be supported against Long, who was not the officer entrusted with the execution of the warrant: he had no title to the possession of it, it belonged to * [The date should be 1807, vide 1 Camp 14 ]...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Australian Rugby Union Ltd v Hospitality Group Pty Ltd
-
Phelps v Prothero
...a joint stock banking company represents the company for this purpose: Hall v. Gonnell (3 Y. & C. C. C. 707). [He also cited Amey v. Long (1 Camp. 14), Lee v. Burrell (3 Camp. 337), Sex v. Woodley (1 Moo. & Eob. 390), Beg. v. Greenway (2 New Sess. Gas. 103), Beg. v. Lord John Russell (7 Dow......
-
Pell v Daubeny
...taming their probable amount A witness who is seived with a subpoena is bound to attend Goodwin v Witt (Cro Car 522, 540), A met/ v Long (1 Camp 14, 180 a ), and if he does so, his attendance is a sufficient consideiation to support a promise to pay his expenses flentall v Sydney (10 A & E ......
-
Cave v Johannes, NO and Others
...by sec. 67. Physical possession and not ownership is the test. Angas' case (supra at pp. 63, 64); Wigmore (supra, at p. 119); Amey v Long (1 Camp. 14); Ackerman v Lockhard (1898 (2), Ch. D. at p. 7). In any event, the cases cited by the applicant do not apply to the production of documents ......