Fowlds against Mackintosh
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 May 1789 |
| Date | 25 May 1789 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 126 E.R. 135
IN THE COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
fowlds against mackintosh. Monday, May 25th, 1789. The Court will not discharge an attachment against the sheriff for not bringing in the body, except upon payment of the whole debt due and costs, beyond the sum sworn to and indorsed on the writ (a). The defendant being arrested on a capias for " 501. and upwards," found bail, who joined with him in the usual bond in the penalty of 1001. No bail above being put in, an attachment was granted against the Sheriff of Middlesex, for not bringing in the body pursuant to a rule of Court. Upon which a rule was obtained to shew cause why the attachment should not be set aside on the payment of 501. 19s. together with costs; it appearing from the affidavit of the sheriff's officer, that he had tendered that sum and the costs to the attorney for the plaintiff who refused to take less than 681. 2s. 6d. the real amount of the debt. Against the rule Marshall, Serjt., shewed cause. The question is, to what extent the sheriff is answerable for not bringing in the body ? This must be the same as that to which bail are answerable. Before the stat. 23 Hen. 6, c. 9, the sheriff was not bound to take bail, unless the party sued out a writ of main-prize. He might iudeed have taken bail, but he was obliged at his peril to produce the body at the return of the writ; otherwise he was guilty of a contempt, for which he was amerced. Since that statute, the sheriff is bound to let the party to bail, if good bail be tendered ; but he is not obliged to take bad bail, and is therefore still required to have the body in Court at the return of the writ, as at common law. If the defendant be arrested and admitted to bail, the plaintiff has his option either to have an assignment of the bail-bond, or if he dislikes the sureties taken, he may proceed against the sheriff to compel him to bring in the body ; or rather, to put in and justify good bail to the action, which is equivalent to bringing in the body. If the plaintiff accepts an assignment of the bail-bond, he admits the sufficiency of the sureties, and waives his remedy against [234] the sheriff. If the plaintiff chooses to proceed against the sheriff, he obtains an order upon him to return the writ, who may then either refuse to return it, or return non est inveutus, or cepi corpus. If he refuse to return the writ, the Court will grant an attachment against him, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Welkom Bottling Co (Pty) Ltd en 'n Ander v Belfast Mineral Waters (OFS) (Pty) Ltd
...nie. Steyn, Uitleg van Wette, 3de uitg., bl. 193 - 8; Middelburg Municipality v Gertzen, 1914 AD 544 te bl. 552; R v Dickson, 1934 AD 231 te bl. 233. Indien 'n regulasie binne die raamwerk van 'n uitdruklik verleende bevoegdheid H val, is dit nie aanvegbaar op grond van onredelikheid nie. F......
-
Gruhn v M Pupkewitz & Sons (Pty) Ltd
...& Van den Berg Construction (Pty.) Ltd. v Banfrevan Properties (Pty.) Ltd., 1968 (1) SA op bl. 327H; Herbstein & Van Winsen, 1954 uitg., bl. 233; 2de uitg., bl. 296; Jones & Buckle, Civil Practice, 6de uitg., bl. 510. Die dagvaarding is juis mededeelsaam met inligting nie. Sien L.S. Enterpr......
-
Van Aswegen v Fourie
...1957 (2) SA 87 (T) op bl. 94; van der Walt v Minnaar, 1954 (3) SA 932 (O) op bl. 939 en 940; Allers v Rautenbach, 1949 (4) SA 226 (O) H op bl. 233), en dat die beweerde mondelinge ooreenkoms nie op 'n oorwig van waarskynlikhede bevind kon word nie. Ek dink nie dat die REGTER-PRESIDENT bedoe......
-
Smit v Saipem
...in sy eie reg kon eis nie en eers sessie van die verkoper se vorderingsreg moes verkry het. Die geleerde REGTER - PRESIDENT het o.m. gesê (bl. 233): "It is no doubt the duty of the vendor to cede these actions to the purchaser, but until this is done the latter will have no locus standi and......