Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

Attorney General v Brown

Nominate Series English Reports Cited authorities 1 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date07 June 1817
Date07 June 1817
CourtExchequer

English Reports Citation: 145 E.R. 1018

IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER

The Attorney General
and
Brown

SlTTlNUK AFTER EASTER TEHM. SlR,J EANT'ft INN llAI.L. Tae kinu v. baubeei. Thursday, I2fch May.-Two extents issued into different counties for the same debt; both sheriff's seized goods; the debt was paid to the one before a venditioni exponas issued to either. He shall have the whole poundage. Two extents went for 12411. 19s. the one to the sheriff of Durham, the other to the Sheriff of Newcastle. The former seized goods to the value of 6041. 17s.; tho latter to 2601. The defendant paid the debt to the latter, before any rendition exponas issued on either. [718] Bailey obtained a rule to shew cause why the poundage should not be apportioned. Plumer for the Sheriff,' of Newcastle, contended that his client was entitled to full poundage, and rested on the case of The Kin/j v. Caldwell (ante, vol. 1, p. 279). Uailey, for the Sheriff of Durham, argued that the poundage ought to be apportioned, as in the case of The, King v. Fry (a). The distinction is, that [719] (a) That case is erroneously stated, (ante, vol. 2, p. 358,) the reporter having been misled by a false entry in the minute-book of the court of the 28th Nov. 1793. It ought to stand thus : The Kimj v Fry, 28th Nov. 17!)3.-Two extents issued for the same debt to the Crown of 11,5741. The Sheriff of S. seized goods to the amount, and in order to liberate :tbe goods so taken, (which were partnership stock,) the partners of the defendant paid the debt to the Keceivers General of the Excise. The Sheriff of B. also claimed to have seized to the full amount. Upon the money being paid, neither levy was proceeded in. The Attorney General argued that the Sheriff is entitled to claim poundage cle jure, only where the levy is completed. 3 G. 1, c. 15, s. 3. liouse, for the Sheriff of S., argued that he was equally entitled to poundage from the money being paid by compulsion of his levy, as if ho had raised it upon a venditioni exponas; Salk. 332, Parker 177, Lane 74...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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