Hickes v Cracknell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 1061
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
higkks . cracknell. Exch. of Pleas. 1837.-Debt on bond conditioned for the payment of an annuity. Plea, that the writing obligatory was made after the passing of the 53 Geo. 3, c. 141, and that the annuity was granted for a pecuniary consideration, and that no memorial of the said writing obligatory, containing the names of all the witnesses thereto, and the date of the writing obligatory, and the names of all the parties thereto, or of the person for whose life the annuity was granted, and of the person by whom the annuity was to be beneficially received, or of the pecuniary consideration for granting the said annuity, or how such consideration was paid, or the annual sum to be paid thereby, was enrolled in Chancery. Replication, that a memorial was duly enrolled (setting it out), and averring that it contained the statements mentioned in the plea. Rejoinder, that the memorial contained divers false statements relating to matters of fact material to the validity of the annuity, especially in this, that the memorial imported and represented that the consideration for the annuity was paid in notes of the Bank of England, whereas it was never paid in such notes or otherwise, : modo et forma as in the replication alleged : and so the defendant again says, that there never was any such memorial as by the act of Parliament is required. 1063 HICKES V. CRACKNELL 3 M. & W. 73. enrolled in Chancery as the act requires :-Held, on special demurrer, that the rejoinder was not a departure from the plea. [S. C. M. & H. 364 ; 7 L. J. Ex. 7.] Debt on a bond conditioned for the payment of an annuity. Plea, that the said writifig obligatory was made and entered into by the defendant to the plaintiff after the passing of a certain act of Parliament, (53 Geo. 3, c. 141), and that the said annuity in the said condition mentioned was granted upon arid for a pecuniary consideration in that behalf; and that no memorial of the said writing, containing the names of all the witnesses thereto, and the date of the [73] said writing obligatory, and the names of allithe parties! thereto, or of the person for whose life the said annuity was granted, and of the person by whom the said annuity was to be beneficially received, or of the pecuniary consideration for granting the said annuity, or how such consideration was paid, or the annual sum to be paid thereby, was enrolled in the High Court of Chancery, according to the directions of the said act of Parliament: whereby the said writing obligatory in the said declaration mentioned is null and void-concluding with ii verification. Keplication-that a memorial of the said writing obligatory in the declaration mentioned...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Veale v Warner
...or valid award had been made; which is the same thing as no award, and a support to, rather than a departure from, his plea. [See also 3 M. & W. 72, Hickes v. Cracknell. 5 M. & W. 50, Gisbome v. Hart. Post, Vol. II. 84, note (1), et seq.] (A) The reader must not infer, that where the defend......
-
Richards et Al v Hodges
...and not to shew that there was no memorial of the bond. 16 East, 41, per Bayley J. This view has been fully maintained by a late case, 3 Mees. & W. 72, Hickes v. Cracknell. That was an action of debt on bond conditioned for the payment of an annuity : plea, that the writing obligatory was m......
-
Brooks against Bockett
...to have direct reference to the bill would have been properly raised. Cur adv. vult. [858] Lord Denman C.J. now delivered judgment. (a) 3 M. & W. 72. See Dresser v. Stansfield, 14 M. & W. 822. 9Q.B. M. BEOOKS V. BOCKETT 1503 This was an application on the part of the defendant to be allowed......
-
Dresser, Public Officer, Company v Stansfield
...the inrolment, alleged in the declaration, of a specification, in compliance with the proviso in the letters-patent. Ilickes v. OrachieU (3 M. & W. 72) is also an authority for the plaintiff. Watson, contra. The plea is good. The case differs from that of Fisher v. Fim/ile-y, because there ......