London City v Vancker
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1741 |
| Date | 01 January 1741 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 90 E.R. 876
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Referred to, London Joint Stock Bank v. Mayor of London, 1875-81, 1 C. P. D. 17; 5 C. P. D. 494; 6 App. Cas. 393; Mercer v. Denne [1905], 2 Ch. 581.
[480] london city versus vanacker. [Eeferred to, London Joint Stock Sank v. Mayor of London, 1875-81, 1 C. P. D. 17; 5 C. P. D. 494; 6 App. Gas. 393; Mercer v. Denne [1905], 2 Ch. 581.] 5 Mod. 438, S. C. 1 Salk. 142, S. C. Custom to amend old by-laws, and to make new. 1 Lev. 15. 2 Lev. 252. 3 Lev. 293. 1 Mod. 10, 164. 3 Mod. 158, 193. 4 Mod. 27, 28. 5 Mod. 105, 106, 107, 156, 157. 6 Mod. 123, 177. Kaym. 447. 1 Salk. 192, 193, 341, 352. 1 Jones 162. 2 Jones 145. 1 Vent. 121, 196. 1 Sid. 284. The defendant was chosen one of the Sheriffs for the City of London, but refused, and thereupon an action was brought against him in London in the Mayor's Court, and in the name of the corporation, for the fine of 5001. according to a by-law : and upon an habeas corpus all this matter was returned into B. R. which return consisting of several customs and by-laws in London, was very long ; but the following exceptions were taken to it. (1.) For that a custom is returned to amend old by-laws when defective; and so by virtue of that custom this by-law was made 20 July, about sixty years since. Which by-law is, that no freeman chosen sheriff, &c. shall be excused, unless he voluntarily swear he is not worth 10,0001. and bring six other citizens to vouch in like manner on their oaths, that they believe it to be true; arid if he openly refuse to take the office, then to forfeit the sum of 5001. (viz.) 4001. to the city, and 1001. to the next man who shall hold the office. Now this is not a proper subject for a by-law, because the power of making bylaws consisteth in the corporation, and extends no farther than to what concerns the good thereof; but the sheriffwick of London and Middlesex was a particular franchise granted to the citizens, &c. long after they were incorporated ; and the office of Sheriff CARTHEW, 481. TERM. PASCH. 11 WILL. 3. B. R. 877 of Middlesex is not within their limits or jurisdiction, therefore not within the power of their by-laws, which power cannot extend beyond the limits of the * corporation ; and if the sheriffwick of Middlesex is out of the reach of this by-law, and the sheriff-wick of London within it, yet the whole by-law is void, because the penalty is intire. (2.) They have by this by-law changed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The City of London against Vanacre
...more if not paid within three months ; is a good bye-law, and reaches to Middlesex although it be out of London. S. C. 1 Salk. 142. S. C. Carth. 480. S. C. 12 Mod. 269. S. C. Holt, 431. S. C. 1 Lcl. Ray. 496. Holt, Chief Justice. This case now stands for the resolution of the Court. It come......
-
The City of London v Vanacre
...city of london versus van acre. [Trin. 11 Will. 3, B. E. 1 Ld. Raym. 496, S. C. 12 Mod. 270, S. C.] [See S. C. 1 Ld. Raym. 496 (with note).] Carth. 480. Franchise granted to a corporation may be regulated by by-law. 3 Mod. 158. 2 Lev. 252. 3 Lev. 293. 1 Lev. 15. 5 Mod. 438, S. C. Cases B. R......
-
Hesketh v Braddock
...degree interested, may yet be a witness. In the course of his argument, he endeavoured to shew that the bye-law was a good one; and cited Carthew, 480, The City of London v. Vanacker. 1 Ld. Eaym. 496, S. C. (with respect to the City of London fining those who are elected and refuse to serve......
-
Master, Company of the Vintner's Company v Passey
...construction. If they choose a person unfit, it may be taken advantage of in pleading, or upon evidence. Oity of London, v. Vanaeker, Carthew, 480, 483. A power " to elect such persons as should seem to them to be fit and able"-gives them a discretion. 6 Co. 100 a. Roolce's case. This is a ......