Ashby v White and Others

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtHigh Court
Judgment Date01 January 1790
Date01 January 1790

English Reports Citation: 92 E.R. 710


Ashby against White and Others

[320] pleas before the lord the king at westminster of the term of saint hilary in the 13TH year of the reign of king william the third. roll 460. ashby against white and others. 2 Ld. Raym. 938. Buckinghamshire, (to wit).-Matthias Ashby complains of William White, Richard Talbois, William Bell and Richard Heydon, being in the custody of the marshal of the Marshalsea of the lord the King before the King himself, for that, to wit, that whereas on the 26th day of November in the 12th year of the reign of the lord the now King, a certain writ of the said lord the now King issued out of the Court of Chancery of him the said lord the now King at Westminster in the county of Middlesex, directed to the then Sheriff of Buckinghamshire aforesaid, reciting that the said lord the King, by the advice and assent of his Council, for certain arduous and urgent businesses concerning him the said lord the King, the State, and the defence of his realm of England, and of the Church of England, had ordained his certain Parliament to be holden at his City of Westminster on the sixth day of February then next coming, and there with the prelates, nobles and peers of his said kingdom to have discourse 3 LD. RAYM. 381. PLEADINGS TO THE CASES 711 and treaty, the said lord the now King commanded the then Sheriff of Buckinghamshire by the said writ firmly enjoining, that, having made proclamation in his next said county after the receipt of the same writ to be holden, of the day arid place aforesaid, two knights girded with swords, the most fitting and discreet of the county aforesaid, and of every city of that county, two citizens, and of every borough two burgesses of the more discreet and most sufficient, should be freely and indifferently chosen by those, whom such proclamation should concern according to the form of the statute thereupon made and provided, and the names of the same knights, citizens and burgesses so to be chosen, to be inserted in certain indentures thereof to be made between him the then sheriff and those who should be concerned at such [321] election (although such persons to be chosen should be present or absent), and should cause them to come at the said day and place, so that they the said knights, citizens and burgesses might severally have full and sufficient power for themselves and the commonalty of the county, cities and boroughs...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No. 3)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 4 December 1998
    ...the 18th century. The most commonly cited starting point for the tort is the celebrated case of Ashby v. White (1703) 2 Ld. Raym. 938; 3 Ld. Raym. 320; 1 Smith's Leading Cases, 13th ed.253, a claim against borough constables for wrongfully preventing the plaintiff from voting. Ashby's claim......
  • Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No. 3)
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 22 March 2001
    ...(1671) 2 Vent. 24. But the first solid basis for this new head of tort liability, based on an action on the case, is to be found in Ashby v. White (1703), best reported in 1 Smith's Leading Cases (13th ed.) 253. The view ultimately prevailed that an action would lie by an elector who was wi......

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