Herbert v Cook
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 May 1782 |
| Date | 11 May 1782 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 99 E.R. 560
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
herbert v. cook (a). Saturday, llth May, 1782. Debt on the judgment of the Hundred Court of St. Briavell's. Plea, that the cause of action did not arise within the jurisdiction of the Inferior Court, on demurrer held good. This was an action of debt on a judgment. The declaration was as follows:- " Gloucestershire, to wit.-Henry Herbert complains of John Cook being in the custody, &e. of a plea that he render to the said Henry £6, 15s. 4d. of, &c. which he owes to and unjustly detains from him, &c. For that whereas the said Henry heretofore, to wit, at the Court of the Hundred and Castle of St. Briavell's, in the county of Gloucester aforesaid, held at the Castle of St. Briavell's, in and for the said castle and hundred, and within the jurisdiction of the said Court, on Monday, the 10th of July, 1780, before W. Court, W. Fryer, and T. Allen, then free suitors there, according to the custom of the said Court from time immemorial, used and approved of within the said Court, came in his proper person, and then and there in the same Court levied bis plaint against the said John in a certain plea of trespass on the case, to the damage of the said Henry of 39s. for a cause of action arising and accruing to the said Henry within the jurisdiction of that Court; and such proceedings were thereupon had in that Court, that afterwards, to wit, at, &c. held, &c. in arid for, &c. and within the jurisdiction of the said Court, on, &c. before, &c. free suitors, &c., he, the said Henry, by the consideration and judgment of the said Court, recovered [102] against the said John, in the said plea, £3, 7s. 8d. for his damages, which he had sustained as well on the occasion of his not performing certain promises and undertakings, then lately made by the said John to the said Henry, within the jurisdiction of the said Court, as for his costs and charges by him laid out about his suit in that behalf, whereof the said John was convicted, as by the memorandums and proceedings thereof, now remaining in the said Court, more fully appears; which said judgment still remains in the said Court there in full force and effect, not annulled, reversed, set aside, paid off, satisfied, or discharged ; and the said Henry hath not yet obtained any execution of the said judgment, whereby an action hath accrued to the said Henry to demand and have of and from the said John the said £3, 7s. 8d. parcel of the said £6, 15s. 4cl. above demanded." There was another count, precisely similar, only calling the Inferior Court the Hundred Court of St. Briavell's. The defendant pleaded, 1. Nil debet, on which issue was joined. 2. That the said Henry ought not to have, &c. because he saith that the said judgment and recovery, in the first count of the said declaration mentioned, and the said judgment and recovery in the said last count of the said declaration mentioned, are one and the same judgment and recovery, and not other or different; and the said John saith, that he cannot deny but that the said judgment and recovery, in the said first count of the said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Rev. Mungo Noble Thompson, Petitioner. The Right Hon. Richard Lalor Shiel, Respondent
...Evidence 8th ed. pp. 506, 525. Rex v. Justices of Monmouthshire 8 Bar. & Cres. 137. Rex v. Carlisle Bar. & Adol. 362. Herbert v. CookENR 3 Doug. 101. Duches of Kingston's case Smith's Leading Cases, 439. Rex v. Gilkes 8 Barn. & Cres. 439. Welch v. NashENR 8 East, 394. Rex v. Inhabitants of ......
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of Hickling
...should have been done, distinct (a)1 See as to the practice, Rex v. Button, 5 B. & Ad. 52. (a)2 .Willes, 36, note (a), S. C., more fully, 3 Doug. 101. 7 0,8. 889. THE QUEEN V. HICKLING 723 from that which they ordered, namely, the construction of a new highway ; and that had not been done w......
-
Moore v O'Donnell
...MOORE and O'DONNELL. Moravia v. SloperENR Willes, 30. Herbert v. CookENR 3 Doug. 101. Morse v. JamesENR Willes, 128. Ladbroke v. Gyles Ib. 199. Barker v. Braham 3 Wils. 376. Parson v. Lloyd 3 Wils, 345. Sollers v. Lawrence Ib. 416. Read v. PopeENR 1 Cr., M. & R. 307. Lessee Coffey v. Rahill......
-
Read v Pope
...action, who must shew that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court. Herbert v. Conk (ibid. 37, reported at length 3 Dougl. 101), which is reported in the notes to Moravia v. Slopet'j is a strong authority in support of the present demurrer. That was an action of debt ......