Gould and Others, Administrators of Robinson v Barnes
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 1811 |
| Date | 24 May 1811 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 128 E.R. 200
Common Pleas Division
Mansell Bart. was Defendant, and in which action Rees and T. Waters did in Easter term, 50 Geo. 3, enter into a recognizance of bail upon this condition, that if judgment should be given for the Plaintiff against Sir W. Mansell in that ,action, then the said Sir W. Mansell should satisfy all such damages which should be adjudged to the Plaintiff against him, or should render his body on that occasion to the prison of the Fleet : he prayed for this interest to be computed from 6th July 1810 to 14th May 1811, when the sum of 11811. was paid to the Plaintiff in part satisfaction of his judgment against Sir W. Mansell, and that the Plaintiff might be at liberty to sue out execution against Rees for what was then remaining due on the said judgment against Sir W. Mansell, and for such interest, and costs so to be computed and taxed, and for sheriff's poundage, costs of levy, and all other iucidental expellees. The circumstances stated were, the action was assumpsit for money lent and interest thereon, the Plaintiff issued a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum against the principal, but being unable to take him, he proceeded in Michaelmas term against the bail. Lens Serjt. shewed cause against this rule in the first instance. This is a novel attempt, and does net come (504) within the terms of the recognizance. For it is plain that the Plaintiff never did or could recover this interest against the principal in this action, whatever he might do in a new action upon the judgment, but it is only in this action that these bail are liable. It would be peculiarly hard to subject the bail to this burthen in the present case, because their principal, by leaving the realm, has put it out of their power to surrender hint MANSFIELD C. J. (after enquiry made of the officers). We have never known any instances of this having been granted, which is a sufficient answer to the present application : we ought not to load the bail with more liabilities than they at present incur. Rule refused. GOULD AND OTHERS, Administrators of Robinson v. BARNES. May 24, 1811. If a person enter into a bond by a Wong Christian name, and be stied on such bond, he should be sued by such name. A declaration against him by his right name, stating that he, by the wrong name, executed the bond, is bad. The Defendant, Joseph Barnes, entered into a bond to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King against Robert Roper
...in Owen v. Hurd, 2 T. R. 644. Fores v. Diemar, 7 T. R. 661. (e) Evans v. King, Willes, 554. Moor. 897. Cro. Eliz. 897. Cro. Jac. 558. 3 Taunt. 504. 6M. &S. 332. THE KING V. ROPER 1267 different times manifested an anxiety to enforce the due intituling of affidavits. The ground is stated by ......
-
Fowler v Fowler. Dodwell v The Attorney-General. Dodwell v Fowler
...and FOWLER. DODWELL and THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. DODWELL and FOWLER. Rolls. Staunton v. StauntonUNK 15 Ir. Ch. Rep. 464. Gould v. BarnesENR 3 Taunt. 504. Williams v. BryantENR 5 M. & W. 447. Rex v. BillinghurstENR 3 M. & S. 250. Reidy v. PierceUNK 11 Ir. Ch. Rep. 361. Stultz's case 4 D. M. & G......
-
Staunton v Staunton
...3 Ir. Jur. 233. (b) 7 B. & Cr. 486. (c) 3 M. & S. 450. (d) 1 B. & Pul. 60. (e) 5 Taunt. 505. (f) 5 T. R. 193. (g) 3 Eng. Eq. Rep. 447. (h) 3 Taunt. 504. (i) 5 T. R. (k) 3 Ir. Law Rep. 89. (l) 2 Jones 37. (a) 3 M. & S. 250. (a) 3 Ir. Jur. 233. (a) 3 Sm. & G. 11; S. C. 3 Eng. Eq. Rep. 447. ...
-
Knox v Irwin
...Pleas. KNOX and IRWIN. Gould v. BarnesENR 3 Taunt. 504. Marrott v. Asken Anders. 212. Nickling v. DickensENR 2 C. & J. 622. Dod v. Grant 4 A. & E. 485. Stradling v. MorganENR 1 Plow. 201, 207. Hunter v. Neck a M. & G. 181. 250 CASES AT LAW. T. T. 1843. Exch. of Pleas. KNOX V. IRWIN. June 9,......