Green v Waller
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1790 |
| Date | 01 January 1790 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 92 E.R. 96
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
96 EASTER TERM, 2 ANN^ REGIN^E 2 LD. RATK. 89S. green vers. waller. Intr. Hil. 13 W. 3, B. R. Eofc. 20. In debt upon a bond conditioned to deliver up certain goods if the law should adjudge them to be prize, if the defendant pleads that the law had not adjudged them prize, he admits that he has not delivered them, and therefore the plaintiff need not allege that in hia replication. Debt on a bond. The defendant craved oyer of the condition, which was, that if the defendant should answer the determination of the law touching such a ship and goods, and in case the law should adjudge the said ship and goods to be prize, or otherwise forfeited, if then the defendant should deliver the said ship and goods to the plaintiff; that then, &c. The defendant pleaded, that the law did not adjudge the said ship and goods to be prize, or otherwise forfeited. The plaintiff replied, that this ship and goods were condemned in the Admiralty of England to be prize and assigns a breach, that the defendant had not delivered the said ship and goods, et hoc paratus est verificare; and at the end of his plea makes a profert in Curia of the [892] sentence, under the Great Seal of the Admiralty. The defendant craves oyer of the sentence, and the exemplification of the sentence was set out in haec verba : to which the defendant demurs. This action was brought in the Common Pleas in Ireland, and judgment was there given for the plaintiff. On error brought, that judgment was affirmed in the King's Bench in Ireland, on which judgment error was now brought here. And the exceptions which were taken to the replication by Mr. Ward were, that by making a profert of the sentence, the plaintiff had deprived the defendant of taking issue upon the sentence; and yet when he cornea upon oyer demanded to set out the sentence, he pleads only an exemplification of it, which is not pleaclable; but if it were, does not prove the plaintiff's replication, being varying in many particulars from the ship and goods mentioned in the condition of the bond ; and so does not prove the law has made any determination as to them. And besides, it does not appear in the sentence, that the capture was upon the high sen and consequently the Admiralty had no jurisdiction; and then also there is no legal determination, and that the breach was not well assigned. Holt Chief Justice. By pleading that the law has made no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kent v Kent
...to B. R in Ireland, to award a writ of inquiry, and upon return thereof to do what by law appertains thereto. (1) Green v. Waller, 2 Lord Raym. 891. See also Knoxv. Costello, 3 Burr. 1791. Heath v. Chilian, 4 Burr. 2015. Haiicock v. Haywood, 3 Term Rep. 435. English Reports Citation: 93 E.......
- "La Madonna Della Lettera."
-
O'Malley v Lindsay
...v. Powell 2 Jones Ir. Ex. R. 263. Rex v. Bishop of Chester 1 Lord. Ray. 303; et vide Shower's Parl. Cases, 212. Green v. WallerENR 2 Ld. Raym. 891. Regina v. Naghten 9 Ir. Rep. 593. Jarmain v Hooper 1 Dowl. & L. 769. Stoddart v. PalmerENR 3 B. & C. 2. Phillips v. ShawENR 4 B. & Ald. 435. Bl......