Hulme v Coles
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
| Judgment Date | 20 July 1827 |
| Date | 20 July 1827 |
English Reports Citation: 57 E.R. 695
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Hulme
and
Coles
See Petty v. Cooke, 1871, L. R. 6 Q. B. 793; Oriental Financial Corporation v. Overend, Gurney & Company, 1871, L. R. 7 Ch. 147, n. Cf. Clarke v. Birley, 1889, 41 Ch. D. 422.
Surety.
[12] hulme v. coles. July 20, 1827. [See Petty v. CooTce, 1871, L. E. 6 Q. B. 793; Oriental Financial Co -poration v. Overend, Gurney & Company, 1871, L. E. 7 Ch. 147, n. Cf. Clarke v. Bvrley, 1889, 41 Ch. D. 422.] Surety. A surety not discharged by the creditor taking from the debtor a cognovit in an action he had brought against the debtor with a stay of execution until a day earlier than that on which judgment could have been obtained in the regular course. A motion was made in this cause for an injunction to restrain the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
5 cases
-
Bonser v Cox
...amount of 750. With respect to the exception of the Messrs. Morrell, it appears, that they agreed to advance the sum of 999 or 1000Hulme v. Coles (2 Sim. 12), were cited. [381] If John Cox had paid the amount of the bond, he could not have enforced it against Richard Cox ; Copis v. Middleto......
-
Charles Hollier, - Appellant; Robert Hedges Eyre and Others, - Respondents
...[1842] IX CLARK & FINNELLYI'rendergast v. Devey (6 Madd. 124), Gregory v. Bessell (Id. 186), Eyre v. Everett (2 rus&. 381), HulmR v. Coles (2 Sim. 12), Gordon v. Galvert (Id. 251), Price v. Edmund^ (10 Barn, and C. 578). It will be material to look to the form of the pleadings in th......
-
Skinner, Secretary, Company, v Lambert
...of the defendant, so called [501] for in respect of his sixty shares in the capital of the 4 MAN. &G. 502. BELCHER V. CAPPERHulme v. Coles, 2 Sim. 12. 4 MAN. & (J. 478. SKINNEK V. LAMBERT 197 words were sufficiently large to authorize the company to sue the defendant, a proprietor o......
-
Michaesl v Myers
...was enlarged. The rule is undoubtedly different where it does not appear that by the security given the time has been enlarged; Hulme v. Coles (2 Sim. 12), Price v. Edmunds (d). [Maule J. The order of Williams J., stated in the third plea, does not stay the proceedings.] It does not do so i......
Get Started for Free
