Jackson, Qui Tam, Company v Gisling
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 93 E.R. 1105
COURTS OF CHANCERY, KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
Davis
and
ers. Miller Et Ux'
davis vers. miller et Ux'. Words not actionable. These words, "You cheated the lawyer of his linen, and stood bawd to your daughter, to make it up with him, you cheat every body, you cheated me of a sheet, you cheated Mr. Saunders, and I will let him know it:" were held not actionable, without a colloquium of the plaintiff's trade or profession (1). (1) Vide 1 Com. Dig. tit...
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
2 cases
-
Turner v Davies
...Keb. 426, 491, Hutchins v. Thomas. 2 Lev. 141, S. C. Cro. Eliz. 261, Reg. v. Harris. Hob. 128, Pie v. Cake. Moor. 864, S. C. 2 Hawk. 275. 2 Str. 1169, Jackson v. G-isling. 3 Burr. 1423, Combe v. Pitt, did not apply; for in them priority of judgment was not the question, but priority of suit......
-
Todd v Hastings
...actions for libal had not been excepted from the personal actions in which it is lawful to pay money into Court (under stat. 3 & 4 W. 42 Str. 1169, Dames v. Miller.(V) So the words, (a) [But see Kid. note (w).] (J) [4 Tyrw. 90, Sibley v. Tomlins, accord.] 1104 TODD V. HASTINGS 2 WHS. SA......