Kent and May, v Kent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1766 |
| Date | 01 January 1766 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 94 E.R. 1052
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
kent and may, vers. kent. Strati. 971, S. C. If a writ of error be brought, and errors assigned by two parties, where one of them would have been sufficient, yet the unnecessary party will be liable to the costs, because by Stat. 16 and 17 Car. 2 he enters into a recognizance to pay such costs and damages as the Court shall award. This was a writ of error out of B. E. in Ireland, on a judgment given there on a writ of error, from the Court of C. B. in Ireland, in dower. The defendant in C. B. CTO.4B. EASTER TERM 7 GEO. 2, B. R. 1053 pleaded double. 1st. The general issue. 2dly. That by an Act made there, 6 Ann. c. 16, a. 137, if any woman, by subtle ways and means, prevailed on an infant to marry her, he having an estate of 501. per annum, and not having the consent of parents, that in such case the woman should lose her dower; and then so pleaded as to bring her within the Act. But this being an Irish Act, and the Court determining that the demandant was not within it, it is thought proper to take no farther notice of the [45] objections and answers which were given to it. There were two tenants to the writ of dower, Edward May, and Robert Kent. The demandant had judgment in C. B. to recover her dower, and 1581. for damages and costs. They both bring error, and assign errors, and then Edward May dies, and there is judgment to abate the writ of error. Afterward, Kent and Robert May, the heir of Edward, bring a new writ of error; and the judgement is affirmed in toto ; and a writ of seisin awarded for the dower against both, and execution for damages and costs against Kent only ; and also for the value from the time of the judgment in C. B. to the time of the affirmance, according to the former computation. Mr. Strange took the following exceptions to the judgment given in the King's Bench in Ireland, viz. 1. That] the Court gave her damages to the value of her dower, to the time of the judgment given in C. B. whereas it appeared she delayed her action for two years; and in 1 Inst. 32 b. is a caution given to women to bring their action in time, lest they lose their damages. 2dly. By stat. 3 H. 7, c. 10, the demandant is intitled to costs, on affirmance of the judgment, upon the account of the delay. But the costs given in B. R. are not said to be occasioned by delay. 3dly. All the costs are laid on the surviving tenant, and none on the heir of the deceased tenant; and the heir is as much bound by the judgment as the other. 4thly. The entry of the judgement is, quod demand, executionem inde; and that the tenants be amerced, which is never done on a writ of error. Mr. Parker, contra. A dowress is a favourite of the law; so is 9 Co. 77. As to the first exception, there are two answers to be given to it. 1st, that that fact cannot appear here, because the original writ of dower is not brought over by cartiorari, which they might have done ; and 2dly, the case in 1 Inst. 3'2 is where the parties are ready to assign dower ; which cannot be here, because they have contested it by their plea. As to the second objection, the Court has no occasion to shew the reason of their judgment. And the judgment may be reversed as to costs, and affirmed as to the rest, if they are wrongly given. Styl. 290. Fares. 154. As to the third objection, damages may be recovered against the survivor; and if damages be given against one only, costs cannot be given against the others. As to the 4th objection, this is helped, being after a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kent and Kent
...English Reports Citation: 95 E.R. 30 King's Bench Division Kent and Kent Cun. 44. Ridgw. 21. 30 TRINITY TERM, 7 GEO. IL CM. T. ICARD. ment on demurrer must usually occasion that delay. That another rule is laid down, that where the faultiness of the plea is wilful, the party injured may on ......
-
Dominus R, v Ellames
...in furtherance of justice, and in order to obtain the right between the parties, those amendments have been 1052 EASTER TEEM 7 GEO. 2, B. R. CUN.44. much extended. These amendments are hardly reducible to any certain rules ; though it were to be wished they could, since they have been so mu......
-
Walters v Icon Central
...in his firm’s trust account to the named second defendants: D and M Chamings $34,225.00 D and M Chamings 45,775.00 G d’Cruz 44,695.00 J Cunningham 44,995.00 Bobby Dazzler Australia Pty In accordance with my judgment and my subsequent minutes of 7 June and 20 July 2011, I have received submi......
-
Professional Ethics In A Tax World – Self-Assessment, Self-Incrimination, The Charter, Crown Fairness And Other Matters
...is governed by both the lawyer’s regulating law society and the courts. As the Supreme Court of Canada recently described in The Queen v. Cunningham44: [18] Superior courts possess inherent jurisdiction to ensure they can function as courts of law and fulfil their mandate to administer just......