Anonymous (1712) Cooke 4

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Common Pleas
Judgment Date01 January 1712
Date01 January 1712

English Reports Citation: 125 E.R. 921

Common Pleas Division

Anonymus

Hil. 11 Geo. II. which having been complied with in the present case the judgment is regular. Howard v. Chandley, C. B. Tr. 4 Geo. III. Nares fur plaintiff, Whitaker, Defendant.] ANONYMUS. TRIN. 11 ANN. 1712. Notice of trial and inquiry. Reg. Cur. Mich. 1654, sec. 21. Vid. Bower v. Street, ante, p. 2, Buxom v. Fellow, post, p. 66. Upon a motion in relation to the due execution of a writ of inquiry of damages, the Court held, that after an interlocutory judgment signed, the plaintiff need only give common notice of the execution of a writ of inquiry, notwithstanding the judgment was signed above a year before ; though upon an issue that hath been joined above a year, a term's notice of trial must be given. Vide the case of Paul v. Gledhil, post, p. 97, where it is held, that a term's notice must be given, as well of the execution of writs of inquiry, as in all other cases of notices, where there has not been any proceeding within the year. ANONYMUS. THIN. 11 ANN. 1712. Costs for defendant after demurrer in quare impedit. Vid. Miller v. Seagrave, post, p. 25. Aplin v. Constable, post, p. 35. In quare impedit, where judgment is given for the defendant upon a demurrer the defendant shall have costs, per totem Curiam. [5] ANONYMUS. TRIN. 11 ANN. 1712. Precipes for recoveries. Reg. Cur' Mich. 1677. Trin. 1736. It was declared by the Court, that all precipes for the passing of recoveries should be marked with the proper prothonotary's name; and at the time of passing the same should be delivered into Court by one of the serjeauts, otherwise no recovery to be entered. ANONYMUS. THIN. 11 ANN. 1712. Habeas corpus brought by the plaintiff. An habeas corpus brought by the plaintiff, a declaration delivered, and judgment signed ; but all was set aside as irregular, because the plaintiff having once made his election cannot remove his own cause, nor can the defendant be compelled to appear. The like rule was made Trin. 10 Ann. Hobbs v. Williams, Prac. Reg. 216. ANONYMUS, MICH. 11 ANN. 1712. Money in Court, and plaintiff nonsuited. Lane and Others against Wilkinson, post, p. 36, and Prao. Reg. 250. But vide Ralhbone v. Stedman, post, p. 54, and Prac. Reg. 251, and Maddox v. Pastan, post, p. 117, where the defendant shall have the money in part of his costs, and vid. post, Crockhay v. Martyn, p. 129, and Barnes, p. 281. In an action against an executor, he paid money into Court, upon the common rule...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 cases
  • National Asset Management Agency v Commissioner for Environmental Information
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 27 February 2013
    ...ART 29.4.7 EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ACT 1972 S3 MEAGHER v MIN FOR AGRICULTURE 1994 1 IR 329 T (MS) & T (J) (A MINOR) v MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP COOKE 4.12.2009 2009/54/13750 2009 IEHC 529 EEC DIR 2003/4 PREAMBLE TO THE DIRECTIVE RECITAL 11 BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION P1234 EUROPEAN COMMUN......
  • Baker v Bradley
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 20 November 1855
    ...(3 Swanst. 400), Tweddell v. Tweddell (Turn. & R. 1), or any of the authorities cited in Palmer v. WJieeler (2 Ball & B. 18) and Harvey v. Cooke, (4 Euss. 34), and in Mr. Swanston's notes to Davis v. Uphill (1 Swanst. 136) and Dunnage v. JfJiite (1 Swanst. 137), there was in the present ins......
  • J Woodward v Barnard Castle Town Council: 2503858/2019
    • United Kingdom
    • Employment Tribunal
    • 4 January 2021
    ...on 10 and 25 November 2020. 3. Evidence for the Claimant was given by: (1) The Claimant, Mrs Woodward, (2) Gill Chapple, (3) Nicky Cooke (4) Roger (5) Barry Piercy 4. A witness statement was served on behalf of an additional witness, PC Marsh but he was not called to give evidence. 5. The R......
  • Wedderburn v Wedderburn
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 1 January 1855
    ...C. C. 639, n.), Townse-rul v. Tmvnaend (1 Cox, 28), Banney v. Mulgard (1 Cox, 145), Beckfonl v. W(ule (17 Ves. 87; see p. 97), Hickex v. Cooke (4 Dow, 16). Nov. 9. the lord chancellor [Cottenham]. Although the papers in this case are voluminous, and the questions of great importance, the fa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 provisions
  • Birmingham Improvement Act 1828
    • United Kingdom
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 January 1828
    ...-J Mary Baker - House and, Appurtenances. Ditto - Joseph Warton - - Ditto. Ditto ... Mary Grew - - . - Ditto, y Ditto/ Hannah Brown Robert Cooke - 4 JaftiesOFincher - John Sumner - - : Ditto. Joshua Peckup John Lancaster - - Ditto. Ditto - William Lord - ?- * Ditto. , Ditto - Joseph Fisher ......
  • Bristol and Gloucestershire Railway Act 1839
    • United Kingdom
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 January 1839
    ...Joseph Phipps Ditto Elizabeth PooJe House and Orchard Thomas Harding Cottage . - George Harding Cottages and Gardens James Morse * John Cooke. 4 John Honey. * 1 \ *J * l* ** ** Void, Void. Phoebe Bayley. Samuel Cozens.. Ditto. Ditto. Mary Smith.. Thomas Hobhs. Hannah Pearce. Charles Lambert......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT