Cooke v The Duchess of Hamilton

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1716
Date01 January 1716
CourtCourt of Common Pleas

English Reports Citation: 125 E.R. 926

Common Pleas Division

Cooke
and
the Duchess of Hamilton

926 CASES OF PRACTICE IN THE COOKBCP11. , the manor of Inglefield, and ordered to be amended in all the places both of the fine and recovery. Freeman v. Montague & Ux', Ti in. 4 Jac. II. and Smith v. The Earl of Dorset & Al', Mich. 11 W. III. the like amendment. Tregare versus Gennings, East, 23 Car. Wyrley. A fine levied of tenements with the appurtenances in T. C. in the parish of L. in the county of C. instead of in T. C. in the parish of St. S. near L. in the county of C. and ordered to be amended. Abney & Al' versus Longueville & Al', Hil. 5 Ann. Cooke. A fine and recovery (in Hil. 35 Car. II.) of tenements in P. in the county of Wilts, instead of in P. Clarendon and Clarendon Park in the county of Wilts, and ordered to he amended. COOKE versus THE DUCHESS OF HAMILTON. HIL. 2 GEO. I. 1716. Amendment of warrant of attorney, vid. The Dutch India Company v. Henriques, post, p. 44. In ejectment a motion to amend a warrant of attorney after a writ of error brought, and granted. [11] WILLS AND OTHERS against TURNER AND OTHERS. HIL, 2 GEO. I. 1716. Costs in prohibition, and construction of the Act 8 & 9 W. III. cap. 11, vid. Bettenson v. Henchman, post, p. 20. Creak v. Pitcarne, post, p. 157. In prohibition a motion was made that the prothonotary should not allow costs, save from the time of the delivery of the declaration ; and on hearing counsel on both sides, and reading the Act of the eighth and ninth of W. 3 the Court unanimously declared, that the plaintiff ought to have his costs from the time of the suggestion, and of the suggestion itself, and all costs incident and subsequent thereto. FORWARD versus BEAVIS. HIL. 2 GEO. I. 1716. Prochein amy. In this cause it was held, that no admission is necessary to sue by prochein amy, altbo' it has been usually done. ROGERS versus BRETTON. HIL, 3 GEO. 1717. Motion to set aside judgment signed after...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Decision Nº LC-2022-452. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 10-02-2023 , [2023] UKUT 42 (LC)
    • United Kingdom
    • Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber)
    • 10 February 2023
    ...know if there is any reason why the revised pitch fee from 1 February 2022 should not be £117.77 per month. Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke 10 February 2023 Right of appeal Any party has a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal on any point of law arising from this decision. The right ......
  • Decision Nº LC-2022-452. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 10-02-2023 , [2023] UKUT 42 (LC)
    • United Kingdom
    • Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber)
    • 10 February 2023
    ...know if there is any reason why the revised pitch fee from 1 February 2022 should not be £117.77 per month. Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke 10 February 2023 Right of appeal Any party has a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal on any point of law arising from this decision. The right ......
  • A.W. v Office of Refugee Applications Commissioner
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 19 February 2013
    ...v REFUGEE APPLICATIONS CMSR & ORS UNREP COOKE 27.1.2009 2009/11/2463 2009 IEHC 77 C (XL) v MIN FOR JUSTICE & REFUGEE APPLICATIONS CMSR UNREP COOKE 10.2.2010 2010/7/1498 2010 IEHC 148 SEN HE v MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP HOGAN 7.10.2011 (EX TEMPORE) REFUGEE ACT 1996 S13(6)(C) S (MOO) v REFUGEE APP......
  • E (D O) (A Minor) (Nigeria) v Minister for Justice
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 March 2012
    ...2 BHRC 273 1998 42 BMLR 149 1997 ECHR 25 ODULANA v MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP CLARK 25.6.2009 (EX TEMPORE) H (CU) & ORS v MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP COOKE 10.3.2011 2011 IEHC 93 IMMIGRATION ACT 1999 S3 N v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPT 2005 2 AC 296 2005 2 WLR 1124 2005 4 AER 1017 2005 UKHL 31......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Public law at the New York Court of Appeals: an update on developments, 2000.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 64 No. 4, June 2001
    • 22 June 2001
    ...provided under the Federal Constitution.(9) In fact, the court, under the leadership of Chief Judges Desmond, Fuld, Breitel, and Cooke,(10) "was in the national vanguard," protecting individual rights during both the Warren Era and the post-Warren retrenchment era at the Supreme However, be......
  • Are We Barking Up the Right Tree? A Meta-Analysis on the Effectiveness of Prison-Based Dog Programs
    • United States
    • Criminal Justice and Behavior No. 47-6, June 2020
    • 1 June 2020
    ...Excluding Chianese 10 92 0.138 (0.064) [0.010, 0.266] .034*- Excluding Contalbrigo 10 76 0.110 (0.055) [0.001, 0.219] .048*- Excluding Cooke 10 87 0.153 (0.072) [0.010, 0.296] .036*- Excluding Fournier 10 70 0.159 (0.074) [0.011, 0.308] .036*- Excluding Grommon 10 87 0.179 (0.068) [0.045, 0......

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