Harris v Pollard et Al'
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1734 |
| Date | 01 January 1734 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 24 E.R. 1095
SIR JOSEPH JEKYLL, MASTER OF THE ROLLS.
[348] de teem. S. hilarii, 1734, Case 91.-harris v. pollard et al'. [1734.] Sir Joseph Jekyll, Master of the Bolls. 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 2, pi. 4. Reviver.-If the defendant's time for answering be out, the court will order proceedings to be revived. So though the defendant by his answer insists that the plaintiff is not entitled to revive; for this ought to be shewn either by plea or demurrer; but if in such case it appears at the hearing that the plaintiff had no title to revive, he cannot have a decree. Upon a bill of revivor, one of the defendants by his answer insisted, that the plaintiff was not entitled to revive; but this being insisted on by the answer only, and not by 1096 HUMPHREYS V. HUMPHREYS 3 P. WMS. 349. way of plea or demurrer, upon my moving at the Rolls that proceedings might stand revived, his Honour granted the motion, having at the same time spoken with the register touching the practice. Though I apprehended that the practice of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fitzmaurice v Sadlier
...Ir. Eq. Rep. 312. Jenkins v. CrossENR 15 Sim. 76. Blackburn v. StanilandENR 15 Sim. 64. Lloyd v. Johnes 9 Ves. 37. Harris v. PollardENR 3 P. Wms. 348. Atwood v.ENR 1 Russ. 353. Willet v. SandfordENR 1 Ves. Sen. 186. Hitchins v. BassetUNK 1 Show. 537; Cases in Parlt. 146. Coward v. Marshall ......
-
Bernard John Daly v Patrick Kirwan
...BERNARD JOHN DALY and PATRICK KIRWAN. Mitf. 289; Harris v. PollardENRENR 3 P. Wms. 348; S. C. 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 2. Sibree v. TrippENR 15 M. & W. 23. Williams v. PriceENR 1 Sim. & St. 581. Dartnell v. Taylor 1 Ll. & temp. Plun. 247. Hatchell v. Lord Cremorne Ll. & g. temp. Pl. 236. Saunders v. ......
-
O'Brien v Mahon
...O'BRIEN and MAHON. Harris v. PollardENR 3 P. Wms. 348. AnonymousENR 1 Atk. 88. M'Collum v. Crawford Ante vol. 6, p. 217. Meagher v. O'MaraENR Flan. & Kel. 269. M'Collum v. Crawford Ubi supra. CASES IN EQUITY. 601 that obligation, because it was an obligation to take an oath, which was not i......