Friend v The Duke of Richmond
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1655 |
| Date | 01 January 1655 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 145 E.R. 570
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER
[505] (3) fiuend m-.s/w the duke of richmond. Error was brought of a judgment in cjectione finme, and in the record a space was left to insert the costs, which had not yet been taxed, and it was now prayed that it might be amended : but because it appeared upon examination, that the record was not yet certified, the plaintiff was at liberty to get costs taxed, and so fill up the space and make the record perfect. And per Hale chief baron, if such an imperfect record had been certified, yet it might be amended by rule of court here ; and then if it be removed by error, the court there must amend it. For it is the constant practice, that if a record be removed into the King's Bench, out of the court of Common Pleas by writ of error, and afterwards amended by rule of court in the Common Pleas, the court of King's Bench must amend it accordingly ; but without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberts v Crown Estate Commissioners
...and that the king cannot pass any thing by livery of seisin, nor by matter in fait; nor cannot desseise, nor be disseised.” 48 Friend v. Duke of Richmond (1667) Hardres 461 was decided by Hale CB and then affirmed by the full Court of Exchequer on a pleading point. It was an action for ej......
-
William Mellish, - Plaintiff in Error; George Richardson, - Defendant in Error
...and 9 Price, 432: Henley v. The Mayor of Lyme Regis, 6 Bing. 100 ; Doe v. Dyball, 1 Moore and Payne, 330: Friend v. The Duke of Richmond, Hardr. 505 ; where Hale, Chief Baron, said it was the.constant practice after error from that Court for the record to be amended there, and the same amen......
-
Mellish against Richardson
...on the pannel was said to be the warrant for certifying the postea and for the entry on the roll. As to Frend v. The Duke of Richmond (Hardr. 505), what is there reported to have been said by Hale C.B. as to the obligation of the Court of King's Bench to amend a record amended by the Court ......
-
William Mellish, - Plaintiff; George Richardson, - Defendant
...349, 659, 749. 6 Moore, 135. 3 Bro. & Bi. 65, and 9 Pri. 432. 6 Bing. 100. Doe v. Dyshall, 1 Moore & Payne, 430. Friend v. D. of Richmond, Hard. 505. Wood v. Mathew, Pop. 102. Sir W. Jones, 9. 2 Roll. Rep. 471. Cro. Jac. 627. Cro. Car. 574. Salk. 49, 269. Franklin v. Reeves, Ca. temp. Hard.......