Anderson v Buckton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 93 E.R. 467
COURTS OF CHANCERY, KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
Anderson
and
ers. Buckton
Disapproved, Daubney v. Cooper, 1830, 10 Barn. & Cress. 831.
1 STRAHQH, MS, TRINITY TERM, 5 GEO. 467 anderson vers. buckton. [Disapproved, Daubney v. Cooper, 1830, 10 Barn. & Cress. 831.] Where the plaintiff shall have full costs though the damages are under 40s. Say. Law of Costs, c. 4. 3 Com. Dig. tit. Costs (A. 3), 235. Trespass for the entry of diseased cattle into the plaintiffs close, per quod the plaintiffs cattle were infected. Not guilty pleaded, and a verdict for the plaintiff for 20s. It was moved, to allow the plaintiff his full costs, upon the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
2 cases
-
Wormald v Cole
...in professor Glanville Williams' s book to which I have already referred. The first extension of this rule seems to have been in Anderson v. Buckton (1718), reported in 11 Modern Reports at page 304, and 1 Strange Reports at page 192, where the plaintiff recovered because his cattle were in......
-
Dominus R v Kinnersley and Moore
...and this was held to be a discharge of them all, though it had been otherwise if it had been laid cum multis aliis. And Hil. 2 Ann. Rot. 1793 E.R. 467 COURTS OF CHANCERY, KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND Dominus Rex and ers. Kinnersley and Moore See Allen v. Flood [1898], A. C. 88. [193] domi......