Askew v The Poulterers' Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1750 |
| Date | 01 January 1750 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 28 E.R. 527
REPORTS IN CHANCERY OF FRANCIS VESEY, SENIOR
[284] II. 89.-askew versus The poulterers' company, December 6, 1750 [and June 6, 1751]. (Beg. Lib. 1750, A. fol. 425. There is no entry in R. L. referable to the period mentioned in the report. On the 6th of June following, however, the bill was dismissed without costs, by consent. Reg. Lib. ubi supra.)--See also 1 Yes. 233. This was the sound doctrine ; but the Courts of Law since Lord Hardwicke's time seem to have " amplified their Jurisdiction " on the point in question to a degree almost of legislation. It certainly, for instance, was the law in the greater part of Lord Hardwicke's time ; and it was that great Judge's express opinion, that no action could be brought upon a bond, without a profert in curia ; so that in case of a lost bond, the remedy was alone in Equity. See in Walmsley v. Child, 1 Yes. 345, and Whitfield v. Fawcet, ibid. 392, 393, et antea, 163 and 169 ; and in Ward v. Turner, 2 Yes. 442. The Courts of Law have, however, since taken cognizance of such matters ; see Bead v. Brookman, 3 T. B. 151, and many subsequent cases. The wisdom of " keeping " the ancient paths," and the inadequacy of the remedies of such a new tried, and self-created jurisdiction, is fully shewn by the judicious observations of Lord Eldon, C., in ex parte Greenway, 6 Yes. 812, 813 ; in 7 Yes. 20, &c. ; and in 9 Yes. 466, &c. As to which also, vide note on Walmsley v. Child, 1 Yes. 345, antea (163): and 15 Yes. 338.
English Reports Citation: 28 E.R. 59
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
askew v. the poulterers company, December 6,1750 [and June 6,1751]. On loss of a deed, &c., the same rule of evidence here, as at law. (Vide 1 Ves. sen. 233, 245, 392-3, and Supplement, p. 163,169, 284.) Loss of deed can only be made out by circumstances. The destruction of a deed, &c., by affidavit. Decree in a - former cause between the same parties, read as evidence, though not conclusive. So also of depositions in a cause which had settled the rights of all; as under a decree for performance of trusts.-See 2 Ves. sen. 110. A question was made whether a decree in a former cause, wherein the present plaintiff, and defendants were parties, might be read on the part of the plaintiff ; it being objected to because no opportunity of cross-examination between co-defendants ? Lord Chancellor. I am very clear that it may be read as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v Turner
...be no action at law on a bond without a profert. (See in Walmesley v. Child, 1 Ves. sen. 341, 345, and Askew v. The Poulterer's Company, 2 Ves. sen. 89, with the observation in the Supplement, p. 163, 284.)-{Supplement, 378.] The end of the bill was to have a transfer of 600 new South Sea a......
-
Cole v Wade
...to them to he his nearest relations, and the most deserving. [43] A disposition of this kind contains a mixture of trust and power. (See 2 Ves. sen. 89, Goiter v. Main-tearing.) The trust must he exercised for relations and kindred of some description or other. The power of selection belong......
-
J. H. Blagrave v Blagrave and Others
...Nevil v. Johnson (2 Ver. 447), Barstow v. Palmes (Prec. in Chan. 233), Byrne v. Frere (2 Mol. 157), and The Poulterers' Company v. Askew (2 Ves. sen. 89), in which last case a decree, in a former suit in which the Plaintiff and Defendants had been parties as Co-defendants, was read as evide......
-
Clavering v Clavering
...law and in equity as to the loss of a deed. (This was the sound doctrine, see 1 Ves. sen. 233, &c., and Askew v. The Poulterers' Company, 2 Ves. sen. 89. Vide, however, the note on that case, Supplement, p. 284, &c.) On liberty given to bring an action, unnecessary to order that the deposit......