Ed. Wallis v Sam. Savill et Al
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1704 |
| Date | 01 January 1704 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 125 E.R. 843
Common Pleas Division
2 LUTWYCHE, 1531. TRESPASS 843 simo primo die Februarii anno regni dicti Dui Regis runic undecimo pred' Johes Ford tertio exact' fuit & non comperuit & ad Coal suum ibid' tent' die Martis vicesimo primo die Mated anno undecinto supradicto idem Johes Ford quarto exact' fuit & non comperuit & ad Coal suum ibid' tent' die Mattis decimo octavo die Aprilis anno undecimo supradicto idem Johes quinto exact' fuit & non comperuit Idea per judicium Corollate? Dui Regis Coin pred' pred' Johes Ford utlagat' fuit & adhuc utlagat' existit prout p record' & procei utlaga? pred' in eadem Cur hic rernandi plenius apparet & hoc parat' est verificare per record &c. undo pet' judicium si pred' Johes Edgecombe & Will'us Lidston ad breve & Bari' pred' Jobis Ford ulterius responders debeant &c. Cum hoc quod iidem Johannes Edgecombe & Will'us Lidston verificare volunt quod pred' [1531] utlagar versus pred' Johem Ford in forma pred' promulgat' & hit in piano robore minitne reversat' seu pdonat' existit judicium pred' versus ipsum Johannem Ford in forma pred' hit' & obtent' in suo piano rebore & effectu adhuc rernanet minima reversal seu adnihilat' &c. Et pred' Johannes Ford dicit quod pred' pl'itum pred' Johattnis Edgeeombe & Willi Lidston superius pl'itat' materiacpie in eodern content' minus suificieil in lege existunt ad ipsurn Johannem Ford a respo6 ad breve & narr sua pred' bend' repellend' Quodque ipse ad pl'itum modo & forma pred' pl'itat' necesse non bee nec per legern terre tenetur respondere Et hoc parat' est verificare undo pro defectu sutlicien respon in hac parte idem Johannes Ford pet' judicium & quad pred' Johannes Edgecombe & Will'us ad breve & nary' pred' ulterius responders compellantur &c. Et pro causis mon:ani in lege in hac parte idom Johannes Ford juxta formam statue in Etujusmodi casu edit' & Cur' hie demonstrat has causal subsequentes videl't pro co quod pl'itum illud est omnino incertum in hoc quod non apparet utrum sit pred' Johannes Edgecombe vel pred' Will'us qui ad breve & narr' pred' respondere compelli non debet & pro eo quod pl'itum illud est duplex male incept' & mate concl6 & caret forma &c. Et pred' Johes Edgecombe & Will'us ex quo ip.S" sufficieii materiam in lege ad pred' Johannem Ford ab acCone sua pred' Psus eos hend' precludend' superius allegaver' quam ips parat' suet Vificare quam quidem materiam idem Johes Ford non dedicit nec ad earn aliqualie respond' riled verificaCoii admittere omnino recusat pet' judicium & quod pred' Johannes Edgecombe & Will'us ad breve & nare pred' Johannis Ford ulterius responders compelli non debe ant &c. Et quia Justic hic se advisare volunt de & super pmissis priusquam judicium hide reddant dies dal' est partibus pred' hicusque in Octabis SCi Hillarii de audiendo inde judicio suo eo quod iidem Justic hie inde nondum &c. Un...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mounson v Redshaw
...whole at once, and not for part at one time and part at another, for that would be oppressive and illegal; Moor, 7, pi. 26. 1 Burr. 589. 2 Lutw. 1532, Wallis v. Samll; and therefore if he distrains a second time for the same thing, he ought to shew that at the time of taking the first distr......
-
Romans v Barrett
...time; and so toties quoties for several times; for that is great oppression; and that is the case of Wallis v. Savill ((1701) 2 Lut 1532, 125 E.R. 843) where the second distress was holden unjustifiable, because both distresses were taken for one and the same rent; and it was the lessor's f......
-
Lear against Caldecott
...be an act of vexation, for which case would lie, but was not a trespass; Hutchins v. Chambers (I Burr. 579, 589), where Wallis v. Savill (2 Lutw. 1532), is explained : and [127] this agrees with the doctrine in Lear v. Edmonds (1 B. & Aid. 157), Lingham v. Warren (2 Brod. & B. 36), and Hudd......
-
Michael Quinlan v The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
...at another time; and so toties quoties for several times; for that is great oppression; and that is the case of Wallis v. Savill et al in 2 Lutw. 1532: where the second distress was holden unjustifiable because both distresses were taken for one and the same rent; and it was the lessot's fo......