Howard v Pitt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 230
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER.
Trin. 4 W. & M. B. R.
error. 1. howard versus pitt. [Trin. 4 W. & M. B. R.] Garth. 236. Where writ of error abates in Cam. Scace. the judgment is not in B. R. without a remittitur. Yelv. 7. Ro. 899. Show. 402, 422. 15 H. 7, 16 b. 3 Cro. 891. Holt 1. Cro. El. 364, 416, 706. Lane 20. Godo. 372. 2 Bur. 660. Trespass against four defendants; the plaintiff recovered in B. R. Error was afterwards brought in Cam. Scacc., where it pended a year, and then abated by the-death of one of the plaintiffs in error; then another writ was brought, which pended half a year, and abated by the death of another plaintiff. The plaintiff in the original action, seeing no new writ of error brought a third time, and thinking himself at liberty, sued out execution by ca. sa. against the survivors. Serjeant Levinz moved for a supersedeas to this ca. sa. Et per Cm: it was agreed, 1st, That there was no need1 of a scvre facias to revive the judgment against the survivors, but that was sufficiently revived by the several writs of error. 2dly, Where a writ of error determines in the Exchequer-Chamber by abatement or discontinuance, the judgment is not again in B. R. till there be a remittitur entered, for without such remittitur it cannot appear to-the Court of King's Bench, but that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jaques v Caesar
...a xupersedeas, which continues until the Court is apprised of the abatement of the writ by a scire facias. Yelv. 208, Spencer v. Rutland. 1 Salk. 261, Howard v. Pitt. S. C. Garth. 236. 1 Ld. Raym. 244, Penoyer v. Brace. S. C. 1 Salk. 319. Garth. 404.(/w) But if he die after errors assigned,......
-
Gildart against Gladstone and Gladstone, in Error
...C.J. The Court are bound ex officio to give a perfect judgment (a)1 1 Salk. 262. (5)1 Garth. 254. (c) 2 Tidd, 1165 (2d edit.), cites 1 Salk. 261, 401. 4 Mod. 76. 4 Burr. 2156. 2 Bac. Abr. Error, M. 2, which latter, (5th edit.) also refers to Pugh v. Goodtitle, Lessee of Bailey, House of Lor......
-
Richard Watters v The Heir and Terretenants of George Lidwill
...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. Snook v. Mattock 6 New. & Man. ......
-
Blanchenay against Burt, Hodgson and Burton
...to the Court, the writ of ca. sa. might be set aside; but it is not a mere nullity. Patrick v. Johnson (3 Lev. 403), and Howard v. Pitt (1 Salk. 261), which were not adverted to in Mortimer v. Piggott (a)2, (b), are precisely in point. (a)1 May 2d. Before Lord Denman C.J., Patteson and Will......