Collins v Blantern. C. B
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1799 |
| Date | 01 January 1799 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 95 E.R. 847
IN THE KING'S COURTS AT WESTMINSTER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 1Sm. L. C. (1903 ed.) 369. Refferred to, Pickering v. Ilfracombe Railway Company, 1868, L. R. 3 C. P. 250; Taylor v. Chester, 1869, L. R. 4 Q. B. 314; Rawlings 1887-89, 35 Ch. D. 87; 14 App. Cas. 259; Kearley v. Thomson, 1890, 24 Q. B. D. 745; Barclay v. Pearson [1893], 2 Ch. 166.
collins versus blantern. C, B. Debt upon a bond for 7001. dated the 6th day of April, 1765. [S. C. 1 Sm. L. C. (1903 ed.) 369. Referred to, Pickering v. Ilfracombe, Eaihvay Company, 1868, L. R. 3 C. P. 250 ; Taylor v. Chester, 1869, L. R. 4 Q. B. 314 ; Rawlings v. Coal Consumers' Association, 1874, 43 L. J. M. C. 112 ; Reichel v. Bishop of Oxford, 1887-89, 35 Ch. D. 87; 14 App. Gas. 259; Kearley v. Thomson, 1890, 24 Q. B. D. 745 ; Barclay v. Pearson [1893], 2 Ch. 166.] This record is of Hilary term in the seventh year of the reign of King George the Third. Roll 326. Shropshire, to wit. - Robert Blantern late of Rodenhurst in the said county, yeoman, was summoned to answer Edward Collins of a plea, that he render to him seven hundred pounds which he owes to and unjustly detains from him, &c. Whereupon the said Edward Collins by John Leake his attorney says, that whereas the said Robert Blantern on the 6th day of April, which was in the year of our Lord 1765, at Rodenhurst aforesaid in the county aforesaid, by his certain writing obligatory acknowledged himself to be held and firmly bound unto the said Edward Collins in the aforesaid sum of seven hundred pounds, to be paid to the said Edward Collins when he should be thereunto [342] required ; nevertheless the said Robert Blantern (although often thereunto required) hath not paid the said seven hundred pounds to the said Edward Collins, but hath hitherto refused and still doth refuse to pay the same to the said Edward Collins, wherefore he says that he is the worse, and hath damage to the value of ten pounds, and therefore he brings suit, and so forth ; and he brings here into Court the aforesaid writing obligatory, which testifies the said debt in form aforesaid, the date whereof is the same day and year abovementioned. And the said Robert, by George Greene his attorney, comes and defends the wrong and injury, when, &c. and craves oyer of the said supposed writing obligatory, and it is read to him in these words : (to wit,) Know all men by these presents, that we John Walker of Forton in the county of Stafford, yeoman, Thomas Walker of Draycott-in-the-Moors in the said county of Stafford, yeoman, and Robert Blantern of Rodenhurst in the county of Salop, yeoman, are held and firmly bound to Edward Collins of Brecond in the said county of Stafford, surgeon, in the sum of seven hundred pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britaiti to be paid to the said Edward Collins, or his certain attorney, executors, administrators, or assigns, for which payment, to be well and faithfully made, we bind ourselves and each and every of us jointly and severally, our and each and every of our heirs, executors, and administrators, firmly by these presents, sealed with our seals ; dated this sixth day of April, in the fifth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, and so forth, and in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and sixty-five ; he also craves oyer of the condition to the said supposed writing obligatory, and it is read to him in these words : (to wit,) The condition of this obligation is such, that if the above-bounden John Walker, Thomas Walker, and Robert Blantern, our heirs, executors, or administrators, shall and do well and truly pay or cause to be paid unto the above-named Edward Collins, his executors, administrators, or assigns, the 848 EASTER TERM, 7 GEO. III. 1767 2 WILS. K B. 343. full sum of three hundred and fifty pounds of good and lawful money of Great Britain, upon the sixth day of May next, without fraud or further delay, then this obligation to be void and of none effect, or else to remain in full force and virtue; which being read and heard, the said Robert saith, that the said Edward ought not to have his aforesaid action thereof against him the said Robert, because he says that the said supposed writing obligatory is not his deed, and of this he puts himself upon the country, &c. And for further plea in this behalf the said Robert, by leave of the Court here for this purpose first had and obtained, according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, says, that the said Edward ought not to have his aforesaid action [343] thereof against him, because he says that before, and at the time of the making of the abovementioned supposed writing obligatory, and also before arid at the time of the making of the promissory note hereafter mentioned, (to wit,) at Rodenhurst aforesaid, the said John Walker and Thomas Walker in the said supposed writing obligatory named, and also one Robert Walker, one Thomas Scillitoe, and one John Cullick, stood respectively indicted in a due course of law on the prosecution of one John Rudge, by five several and respective indictments for wilful and corrupt perjury, to which said several and respective indictments the said John Walker, Thomas Walker, Robert Walker, Thomas Scillitoe, and John Cullick, had respectively pleaded the several pleas of not guilty before the making of the said supposed writing obligatory, and also before the time of the making of the said note hereafter mentioned; and the traverses of the said John Walker, Thomas Walker, Robert Walker, Thomas Scillitoe, and John Cullick respectively on the respective indictments were, at the time of the making of the unlawful, wicked, and corrupt agreement hereafter mentioned, and of the note hereafter mentioned, and also of the above supposed writing obligatory, (to wit,) on the day whereon the said supposed writing obligatory was made, about to come on to be tried at the assizes then, (to wit,) on that day being, and continuing to be held at Stafford for the county of Stafford, and that the said John Walker, Thomas Walker, Robert Walker, Thomas Scillitoe, and John Cullick, so standing indicted on the prosecution of the said John Rudge, and the said traverses so being about to be tried as aforesaid, it was on the said sixth day of April in the year 1765, in the said writing obligatory mentioned, (to wit,) at Rodenhurst aforesaid, unlawfully, wickedly, and corruptly agreed by and between the said John Rudge, the prosecutor of the indictments aforesaid, the said Edward Collins the plaintiff, and the said John Walker, Thomas Walker, Robert Walker, Thomas Soillitoe, and John Cullick, the defendants in these respective indictments, that the said Edward Collins the now plaintiff should give to the said John Rudge the prosecutor of the indictments aforesaid, his note in writing, commonly called a promissory note, as and for value received, to bear date on a certain day and in a certain year now past, (to wit,) on the day and year last mentioned, for a large sum of money, (to wit,) the sum of three hundred and fifty pounds, payable to the said John Rudge thereafter, (to wit,) one month after the date thereof, as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- ABDA Airfreight Sdn Bhd v Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia Bhd
-
Morrell (Gifford), Morell (Fiona) v Workers Savings and Loan Bank
...defence to an action in contract. Illegality often reaches out a far way, though it is not by any means all-embracing. The case of Collins v Blantern (1767) 2 Wils. K.B. 341 is one of respectable antiquity. There the facts disclosed that a bond for £700 was given as part of ari arrangement ......
- Quinn & Others v Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd
-
Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley
...distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactionsWhatsoever: See as to deeds Collins v. Blantern (1767) 1 Smith's Leading Cases, page 406, as to judgments, The Duchess of Kingston's, case (1776) 2 Smith's Leading Cases, pages 646, 651......
-
Illegality
...not to attend at the public examination of the bankrupt and oppose discharge held unenforceable) [ Kearley ]. 65 Collins v Blantern (1767), 2 Wils KB 341, 95 ER 847 (KB); Pachal v Schiller (1914), 20 DLR 851 (Sask SC); Boon v Fair (1916), 11 OWN 177 (HC) [ Boon ]; Johnson v Musselman , [191......