Harvey against Wright
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 88 E.R. 616
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
[40] case 30. harvey against wright. If a cause has not been proceeded in for four terms, a whole term must intervene between the notice and the trial. There was this question raised concerning understanding a rule of Court (a). The rule was, that if a cause waa not at all prosecuted in four terms, neither party could revive process, without giving the other a term's notice. The question was, whether notice at any time within the term, as e.g. the last day of the term, would satisfy the rule1? or, whether the rule does not require a whole term's notice ? The Court, upon time taken to consult the rest of the Judges, that all the Courts might be uniform in their practice, delivered their opinion, that by a term's notice (a) See Lingen v. Smiroy, Gilb. Eq. Rep. 91. S. C. 1 Peer. Wms. 175. Edwards v. Warwick, 2 Peer. Wms. 171. Chtidot v. Guidot, 3 Atk. 254. Pultney v. Darlington, 1 Brown's Cases Ch. 223. Eashleigh v. Master, 3 Brown's Cases Ch. 99. Brmmi v...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
JP Morgan Multi-Strategy Fund LP v Macro Fund Ltd
...(38) Rawstone v. Preston Corp.ELR(1885), 30 Ch. D. 116; 52 L.T. 922, referred to. (39) Say & Seal (Lord)”s CaseENR(1712), 10 Mod. 41; 88 E.R. 617, referred to. (40) Southwark & Vauxhall Water Co. v. QuickELR(1878), 3 Q.B.D. 315, dicta of Cockburn, C.J. considered. (41) Telesystem Intl. Wire......
-
Lord Say and Seal's Case
...E.R. 617" class="content__heading content__heading--depth1"> English Reports Citation: 88 E.R. 617 COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUERLord Say and Seal's Case case 31. lord say and seal's case. An attorney who is employed in suffering a common recovery is not privil......