Greenshields v Harris
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 May 1842 |
| Date | 07 May 1842 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 328
EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS.
S. C. 2 Dowl. (N. S.) 272; 11 L. J. Ex. 319; 6 Jur. 511.
GflpENSHfELDS v. HARRrs. Exch. of Pleas. May 7, 1842.-Where, the venue being in Surrey, final judgment was signed on the 2nd April 1840, and a testatum ca. sa. oi the same date issued into Yorkshire, on which the defendant was arrested; an original ca. sa. into Surrey, also dated the 2nd April 1840, with a general return of non est inventus thereon, was held sufficient to warrant the testatum.-A writ of ca. sa. may be executed more than a year after its date. [S. C. 2 Dowl. (N. S.) 272; 11 L. J. Ex. 319 6 Jur. 511.] In this case, the venue being in Surrey, final judgment was signed on the 2nd April, 1840, and a testatum ca. sa. of the same date was issued to the sheriff of Oxfordshire, under which the defendant was taken into custody on the 19th June, 1841. Pigott had obtained a rule calling on the plaintiff to shew cause why the defendant should not be discharged out of custody, on two grounds ; first, on an affidavit stating that, on search in the office, there appeared to be no original writ of ca. Ba. issued Into Surrey on which to found the testatum ca. sa. into Oxfordshire; and, although thia might have been amended under the old practice, when writs of execution were made returnable as of the term, this was otherwise since the statute 3 &l 4 Will. 4, c. 67, whereby they were made returnable immediately on execution ; for iwhieh Tmwrs v. Newton (Q. B. 319; 4 P. & D. 625) was cited as an authorit}': and secondly, that the testatum oa. sa. had lost its force at the time of the arrest, not having been executed within a year from the day on which it bore date. [775] Barstow (with whom was Bylcs) now shewed cause on an affidavit, verifying 9M.&W.776. OREENSHIELDS V. HARRIH 329 an original writ of oa. sa. issued into Surrey, tested the same day a* the testatum ca. sa.:, and returned generally "nou est invenfcus," without any date. This, he con-tedded, clearly distinguished the present case from Towers v. Newton, where there was iiof writ into the original county ; and the circumstance of the two writs bearing date the same day could make no difference. He cited also Newnham v. Law (5 T. R. 577), as an authority that the Court would, if necessary, allow the plaintiff to amend by suing out an original ca. an. to support a testatum; and urged that the alteration in the form of the writ introduced by the stat. 3 & 4...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Underhill v Devereux
...the year, although not returned and filed within the year, and notwithstanding a year has expired since the issuing of the ca. sa. Ibid. 9 M. & W. 774, Greenshiehls v. Hams. 1 Dowl. N. S. 793, Thomas v. Harris.] (a) It was formerly held that an elegit might be sued out after a year without ......
-
Richard Watters v The Heir and Terretenants of George Lidwill
...20. Adams v. SavageENR 2 Salk. 601. In re John Bagot 8 Ir. Law Rep.295. ENR Vide 2 Saund. 71, note 4. ENR Vide Greenshields v. Harris, 9 M. & W. 774. Howard v. PittENR 1 Salk. 261, & 2 Saun, 72d. Erby v. ErbyENR 1 Salk. 80. Taswell v. StoneENR 4 Burr. 2454. Benwell v. BlackENR 3 T. R. 643. ......
-
Holmes against Newlands
...if sued out within that time; Simpson v. Heath (5 M. & W. 631), Thomas v. Harris (1 Dowl. P. C. N. S., 793), Greenfields v. Harris (9 M. & W. 774); and the plaintiff, if his execution has not been effectual, may obtain fresh process, the first having been returned. Actions of debt on judgme......
-
Jordan against Binckes
...sued out within the year and day. This has been distinctly held with respect to a ca. sa.; Simpson v. Heath (b), Greenshields v. Harris (9 M. & W. 774). One of the objects of the statute was to render a succession of writs unnecessary. As before the statute there might have been successive ......