Field v Mackenzie, on of the Registered Public Officers of the Newcastle Upon-Tyne Joint-Stock Banking Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 July 1848 |
| Date | 08 July 1848 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 136 E.R. 1299
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
[384] field v. mackenzie, one of the Registered Public Officers of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Joint-Stock: Banking Company. July 8, 1848. Semble, that, where a rule for a scire facias against a member of a joint-stock banking company, .under the 7 G-. 4,. c. 46, has inadvertently been allowed to. drop, the plaintiff is not precluded from afterwards applying to the court for another scire facias,-dissentiente Wilde, C. J.-The notice of sittings in bane in vacation, pur- 1300 FIELD V. MACKENZIE 6C.B.385. suant to the 1 Viet. e. 32, must specify with accuracy and precision the nature of the business to be proceeded with. In Trinity term, 1847, the plaintiff, who had recovered judgment against Daniel Mackenzie, one of the registered public officers for the time being of a banking copartnership, carrying on business, pursuant to the provisions of the statute 7 G. 4, c. 46, at Newcastle, under the name of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Joint-Stock Banking Company, in an action upon a promissory note for 14,0001., bearing date the 26th of February, 1845, but had been unable to obtain satisfaction thereof, either from the public officer or from the members of the co-partnership for the time being, obtained a rule to shew cause why a scire facias quare executionem non should not issue upon the judgment, against seven individuals who were respectively members of the co-partnership at the time of the making of the contract. This rule was made absolute against all the parties except John Brooke, as to whom it was enlarged until the first day of the following term, on the ground that he had not been served in time to enable him to answer it: vide ante, vol. iv. p. 705. The rule was called on, in due course, on the second day of Michaelmas term, when W. H. Watson and Willes appeared for the purpose of shewing cause. No one being instructed, on the part of the plaintiff, to support the rule, it was discharged with costs. On a subsequent day, Martin, for the plaintiff, prayed [385] that the rule might be re-opened. No sufficient excuse, however, being shewn for not having instructed counsel to appear to support the rule, the court declined to entertain the application. S. Martin and Hugh Hill, in Trinity term,-upon affidavits stating, in addition to the facts deposed to on the former occasion, that the executions, issued pursuant to the former rule, notwithstanding every effort made...
To continue reading
Request your trial