Garland v Carlisle
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 February 1834 |
| Date | 01 February 1834 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 131 E.R. 979
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 2 Cr. & M. 31; 3 Tyr. 705: Affirmed in House of Lords, 11 Bligh (N. S), 421; E. R. 386(with note); 4 Cl & F. 693; 7 E. R. 263(with Note); 4 Bing. N. C. 7; 3 Mee. & W. 152; 4 Scott, 587.
[452] (!n the exchequer chamber.) garland . carlisle. Feb. 1, 1834. [S. C. 2 Cr. & M. 31; 3 Tyr. 705: Affirmed in House of Lords, 11 Bligh (N. S.), 421; 6 E. K. 386 (with note); 4 Cl. & F. 693; 7 E. K. 263 (with note); 4 Bing. N. C. 7; 3 Mee. & W. 152; 4 Scott, 587.] Upon error from the Common Pleas, the judgment of that Court in this cause was, after argument, now affirmed. (See 7 Bingh. 298.) The point decided being in effect the same as that upon which judgment has so recently been given at great length in Balme v. Hutton (9 Bingh. 471), confirming the 980 CURTIS V. CURTIS EING. 477. principle established by Cooper v. Chitty (I Burr. 20), Lazarus v. Waithman (5 B. M. 313), Price v. Helyar (4 Bingh. 597), Carlisle v. Garland (7 Bingh. 298), Potter v. Starkis (Selw. N. P. 1431. 2 M. & S. 260), Wyatt v. Blades (3 Campb. 396), Lee v. Lopes (15 East, 239), and Dillon v. Langley (2 B. & Aid. 131), it would be superfluous, in these reports, to give the ease at length. Gurney B., Taunton, J. Parke, and Little-dale Js. were for affirming the judgment upon the point decided in Balme v. Button; and Bolland, Vaughan, and Bayley Bs., with Denman C. J., were for reversing it on that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Sir Robert John Harvey, Anthony Hudson, and Robert John Harvey Harvey Edward Blakely, a Bankrupt. ex parte Thomas Osborne Springfield and Another
...by the 228th section. 756 EX PABTE HARVEY tDE 0, M. & 0. 890. They referred to Garland v. Carlisle (4 Bing. N. C. 7; 2 Moo. & S. 24; 10 Bing. 452 ; 3 M. & W. 152); Button v. Morrison (17 Ves. 193); Simpson, v. Sikes (6 Mau. & S. 295); Botcherbyv. Lancaster (1 A. & E. 77); Bacon's Abridgment......
-
Hudson, Assignee of Henry, a Bankrupt, v M'Allen
...Fin. 77. Woodland v. Fuller 11 A. & E. 859. Wymer v. KembleENR 6 B. & C. 479. Morland v. PellattENR 8 B. & C. 722. Garland v. CarlisleENR 10 Bing. 452. Balme v. HuttonENR 2 C. & J. 20. Notley v. BuckENR 8 B. & C. 160. Balme v. HuttonENR 9 Bing. 471. Groves v. CowhamENR 10 Bing. 5. Keely v. ......