Fisher, Administratrix v Lane and Others 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. 1065
IN THE KING'S COURTS AT WESTMINSTER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
See London Joint Stock Bank v Mayor of London, 1880-81, 5 C. P. D. 502; 6 App. Cas. 393.
3 WHS. K.B.MS- TBINITY TERM, 12 GEO. III. 1772 1065 fishes, Administratrix versus lane and others. C, B. Action by an adminia-tratrix for goods sold and delivered by the intestate, on the general issue pleaded, the defendants gave in evidence the payment of a sum of money in '' consequence of a judgment upon a foreign attachment in London, by producing a copy of the minutes of the process on the foreign attachment by the officer who executed that process. [See London Joint Stock Bank v. Mayor of London, 1880-81, 5 C, P. D. 502 ; 6 App. Cas. 393.] 2 Black. Eep. 834, S. C. Action upon the case upon assumpsit brought by the plaintiff as administratrix of her late husband John Fisher, for goods sold and delivered by him in his life-time to the defendants, who paid 201. 9s. 6d. into Court and pleaded the general issue, whereupon issue being joined, the cause was tried before Lord Chief Justice de Grey, at the sittings in London after Trinity term, 11 Geo. 3, when a verdict, by consent, was found for the plaintiff with damages and costs, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the report of the Lord Chief Justice upon a motion for a new trial. [298] In Michaelmaa term last Lord Chief Justice de Grey made his report in Court to the following effect, viz. This is an action brought by the plaintiff as administratrix of her late husband John Fisher, for beer called porter sold and delivered by her said husband to the defendants as merchants for exportation; at the trial no witneasea were called for the plaintiff, because the defendants admitted that a fair and just debt of 1021. 11s. was due and owing to the intestate for porter by him sold and delivered to them in his life-time. The defendants gave in evidence a payment of a sum of money in consequence of a judgment upon a foreign attachment in London, and for that purpose called the proper officer (the Serjeant at mace) who executed the city process in the foreign attachment, who, being sworn, deposed that he had in hia hand a true copy or minutes of the proceedings in the foreign attachment entered in the book kept for that purpose, whereby it appeared that one Henry J'anson, on the 17th day of May in the 10th year of King Geo. 3, levied a plaint in the Court of London against the now plaintiff Fisher (the administratrix) the entry whereof is thus, viz. "Henry J'anson demands against B. Fisher 1001. which he unjustly detains, for that John Fisher the intestate was in his life-time indebted to the said Henry J'anson, in debt 1001. damages 20s. sworn to 921. 18s. pledges, &c." that he the officer afterwards, on the said 17th day of May in the 10th year of Geo. 3, between the hours of three and four o'clock in the afternoon, attached 921. 18s. the money of John Fisher the intestate, in the hands of Lane and others the now defendants. That it appeared by the said entry in the said book, whereof he had a true copy in his hand, that the now plaintiff Mrs. Fisher (the defendant in the City Court) made four defaults in not appearing, that is to say, the first default on the 18th day of May in the 10th year of Geo. 3.-The second default on the 19th day of May in the 10th year of Geo. 3.-The third default on the 26th day of May in the 10th year of Geo. 3.-And the fourth default on the 28th day of May in the 10th year of Geo. 3, which four defaults were recorded against (the now plaintiff) Mra. Fisher the then defendant in the city Court, whereupon, at the petition of Henry J'anson (the plaintiff in the City Court) it is commanded to the serjeaut at mace that he accordingly do warn the garnishees (the now defendants) that they be here (i.e. in the City Court) on Tuesday the 12th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State (Attorney General) v Judge Roe
...of Court proceedings and, in the superior Courts, generally exclude oral evidence of an order. Fisher v. LaneENR (1772) 2 W. Bl. 834 and 3 Wils. K.B. 297, Hartley v. HindmarshELR L.R. 1 C.P. 553 and Mash v. DarleyELR[1914] 3 K.B. 1226 approved. 4, Oral evidence of the spoken orders of the D......