Attenborough v Thompson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 November 1857 |
| Date | 21 November 1857 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 157 E.R. 230
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 27 L. J. Ex. 23; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 1307, 6 W. R. 135.
[559] attenborough v. thompson. Nov. 21, 1857-Under the 17 & 18 Viet, c. 36, s. 1, which requires to be filed an affidavit of the description of the residence of every attesting witness to a bill of sale, it is a sufficient compliance with the statute if an attorney's clerk is described as of the office or place of business of his emplojers though he sleeps elsewhere. [S. C. 27 L. J. Ex. 23; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 1307, 6 W. R. 135.] In this case the sheriff of Middlesex having seized the defendant's goods undei a, fi. fa. issued on a judgment obtained by the plaintiff, one Maxwell claimed the goods under a bill of sale from the defendant. In the affidavit filed with a copy of the bill of sale, in pursuance of the 17 & 18 Viet. c. 36, s 1, the attesting witness was described as "Thomas Myles Attwell, clerk to Messrs. Moores & Sills, attormes, of No. 18 Old Broad Street, in the city of London, gentlemen." The sheriff took out an interpleader summons which was heard before Martin, B., when it appeared that Attwell, the attesting witness, attended every day at No. 18 Old Broad Street, which was the office or place of business of his employers, but that he slept elsewheie It was objected that the affidavit did not contain a sufficient desciiption of the residence of the attesting witness within the meaning of the statute} and by consent of the parties the learned Judge ordered that the sheriff withdraw from possession of the goods seized, the plaintiff to be at liberty to take the opinion of the Court upon the point. Day, in the present term, obtained a rule calling on the claimant to shew cause why the sheriff should not re-enter and retake possession of the goods seized by him Phipson shewed cause (Nov. 17) The 17 & 18 Viet. c. 36, s. 1, enacts that every bill of sale, &c, shall, " together with an affidavit of the time of such bill of sale being made or given, and a description of the residence and occupation of the person making or giving the same," &c.; " and [560] of every attesting witness to such bill of sale," be filed within twenty-one days. Here there is a sufficient description of the residence of the attesting witness within the meaning of that enactment. By a rule of the Court of King's Bench, M T. 15 Car. 2, it was ordered that the true place of abode, and the true...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Palaniappa Chettiar, Re the estate of
- Re Taylor; ex parte Natwest Australia Bank Ltd
-
S v Naicker
...considered to be the manifest object of the Legislature, is illustrated by 1967 (4) SA p223 Milne JP the case of Attenborough v Thompson, 157 E.R. 230, decided more than a century ago, when four Judges of the Exchequer Division held that it was a sufficient compliance with a statute requiri......
-
Mason v Bibby
...office or place of business of his employer, though'he sleeps elsewhere : Blackiodl\. England (8 E & B. 541), AttenLwo-ugh v. Thompson (2 H. & N. 559). So in an affidavit to hold to bail, an attorney's clerk may state his place of abode to be the office where he is employed . Haslope v. Tho......