Gibbs v Cole
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 May 1734 |
| Date | 01 May 1734 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 21 E.R. 192
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
192 GIBBS V. COLE DICKENS, 65. gibbs v. cole. (Reg. Lib. A. fol. 338.) 1 May 1734. 3 P. Wms. 225, S. C.; 2 Eq. Abr. 14, S. C. Upon application to dissolve an injunction upon coming in of the answer, which was to stay the printing and publishing of a book, the Lord Chancellor said, it was proper to allow affidavits to be read in support of the injunction ; and affidavits were read. Note.-The order for the injunction is dated the 28th of February 1733, Reg. Lib. A. fol. 194, and appears to be founded on the affidavit of the plaintiff. On shewing cause to continue it, the first day of May 1734, not only the affidavit of the plaintiff which was read when the injunction was granted, but also an affidavit of Job Mills and of John Baldoch were read in support of it. If affidavits were allowable in a case where a plaintiff may have satisfaction in some degree against a defendant by making him account for the profits, a fortiori there is reason to allow them to be read where no reparation in damages can be made, as for cutting down trees planted, or growing for pleasure, ornament, or shelter.
English Reports Citation: 24 E.R. 1051
LORD CHANCELLOR TALBOT.
[255] Case 62.-gibbs v. cole...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Archbishop of Dublin v Coote and Lord Trimleston
...of Leeds v. New RadnorENR 2 Bro. C. C. 518. Benson v. BaldwinENR 1 Atk. 598. Manly v. HawkinsUNK 1 Dr. & Wal. 363. Holder v. ChamburyENR 3 P. Wms. 255. Duke of Leeds v. ParnellENR 1 Ves. sen. 171. Cocks v. FoleyENR 1 Vern. 359. Thorndike v. AllingtonENR 1 Ch. Cas. 79. Richardson v. Hastings......
-
Brady v Fitzgerald
...4 M. & Sc. 539; S. C. 1 Bing. N. C. 19. Roberts v. Hughes Beat. 417. Cremen v. HawkesUNK 8 Ir. Eq. Rep. 153, 503. Holder v. ChamburyENR 3 P. Wms. 255. Duke of Leeds v. PowelENR 1 Ves. sen. 171. Webb v. RusselENR 3 T. R. 393. Kelly v. Clubbe 6 B. M. 335. Milnes v. BranchENR 5 M. & S. 411. Ex......
-
Isaac against Humpage and Others
...that a material mistake occurs in Mr. Tesefs statement of this case in the contemporary report (1 Ves. jun. 429Strathmore v. Bowes (S. C. 2 Bro. C. C. 88, 89), 3 P. Wms. 255 a (where other cases are cited, in which the same thing has been done), to shew that it was Lord Kenyan's opinion tha......
-
Smythe v Smythe
...Ib. 4] 9. Williams v. M'Namara, 8 Fes. 70. Surges v. Lamb, 16 Ves. 174. Day v. Merry, Ib. 37" . Delapole v. Delapole, 17 Ves. 150Gibbs v. Cole, 3 P. Wms. 255. Potter v. Chapman, Amb. 99. Robinson v. Byron, 1 Bro. C. C. 588. Countess of titrathmore v. Bowes, 2 Dick. 673; 2 Bro. C. C. 88; 1 C......
-
Restrain Me Not: Mitchel v Reynolds and Early 18th Century Patent Law
...that the ‘small variation’ between the two books ‘would not entitle the defendant to break in upon the patent’: (1734) 3 P. Wms 255, 255; 24 ER 1051, 1052. There was, however, no detail as to what the difference between the two books was. It may, therefore, be possible to see the case as be......