Cotton v Sawyer
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 June 1842 |
| Date | 11 June 1842 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 496
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 2 Dowl. (N. S.) 310; 11 L. J. Ex. 397.
496 COTTON V. SAWYER 10M. SW. 329. cotton v. SAWYER. Exch. of Pleas. June 11, 1842.-Where a. defendant was described in a writ of summons as " R. S., of the city of London"--Held, that the description was insufficient, although it was stated in the affidavits that sometime before the issuing of the writ he had abandoned his house, and had no regular place of abode.-Semble, that he ought to have been described as of his late abode. [S. C. 2 Dowl. (N. S.) 310; 11 L. J. Ex. 397.] Hoggins had obtained a rule calling upon the plaintiff to shew cause why the service and copy of the writ of summons should not be set aside for irregularity, with costs, [329] on the ground that the defendant was described in it as .Richard Sawyer, of the city of London generally, without specifying anyplace or street. The affidavits in answer stated that the defendant had been resident in the city of London, but some time before the issuing of the writ had abandoned his house, and had no regular place of abode there, though he occasionally resorted to the Bull Inn, Aldgate, where he was served with the writ. Martin shewed cause. Under the circumstances detailed in these affidavits, the description was sufficient, as no better description could he given, and the act of Parliament must be construed reasonably. Besides, the form of the rule, to set aside the service and copy of the writ, is irregular. In Hull v. Redington (5 M. & W. 605) an application to set aside the copy served was considered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelly v Lawrence and Another
...it can be true, the omission or insufficiency of the description would be ground for setting aside writ and service ; Cotton v. Sawyer, 10 M & W 328 , Windham v Fenmck, 11 M & W 102 , King v. Hopkins, 13 M, & W 685 , and a party named, but not even served, m the latter case, was held entitl......
-
Re Hams, a Bankrupt
...& c. In re HAMS, a Bankrupt. Cotton v. SawyerENR 10 M. & W. 328. Fenn v. BittlestonENR 7 Ex. 152. Murray v. Moss 1 M. & Sel. 337. Blackwell v. EnglandENR 8 E. & B. 541. Stansfeld v. CubittENR 2 De G. & J. 222; S. C., 1 De G. & J., Bank. Ap. 168. Freshney v. CarrickENR 1 H. & N. 653. Reynold......
-
Thorpe v Browne
...BROWNE. Rolls. Trousdale v. SheppardIR 14 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 370. In re Fitzgerald's EstateUNK 11 Ir. Ch. Rep. 278. Cotton v. SawyerENR 10 M. & W. 328. In re Fitzgerald's EstateUNK 11 Ir. Ch. Rep. 284. M'Dowell v. WheatleyIR 7 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 512. Woodroffe v. GreenUNK 12 Ir. Ch. Rep. 481.......
-
Roche v Wilson
...Pleas. ROCHE and WILSON. Cotton v. SawyerENR 10 M. & W. 328. Ross v. SandellENR 7 C. B. 766. Price v. Powell 6 Ir. Jur. 277. 252 COMMON LAW REPORTS: T. T. 1854. a verdict in his favour, and the Judge certifies; such a contingency CommonPleas. can never occur where no trial takes place. JOHN......