Lord Foley v Carlon
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 January 1832 |
| Date | 24 January 1832 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 159 E.R. 1042
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
See p. 373, ante.
lohb foley v. carlon. Jan. 24th, 1832.-Where exceptions are set down for argument, d rule must be served on the same day, for the argument of the exceptions on the day of exceptions which shall first happen aftei four days from the filing of the exceptions, [See p. 373, ante.] In this ease, exceptions having been set down foi argument, Mr. Simpkinson and Mr^ Kenyen Parker for the defendants, objected to the exceptions being argued, on the ground that the plaintiff had not, in compliance with the general order (a)2 of the Court, served a rule to argue the exceptions on the day when they were tiled, but four days afterwards Mr. G. Richards, for the plaintiff. At the time the general order was made, the Court heard exceptions three days a week, but now only once. [384J lord lyndhurrt, L. C. B. If the rule be still in force, then, according ^a)1 In the Court of Exchequer the process is already sealed, and only requires to be filed up by the clerk in Court. {a)2 By a general order, dated the 7th May, 1794, it is ordered, That every plaintiff who shall take exceptions to a defendant's answer, shall, on filing the same, give a four-day rule (one day exclusive, the other inclusive) for arguing the same in Court, on the first Tuesday, Wednesday, or Friday in term on which such rales shall expire, provided a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John Garvin, in Replevin, v James Carroll
...2 B. & Ald. 546. Denney v. Hewson and another 1 Fox & Sm. 47. The Queen's caseENR 2 Brod. & Bing. 286. Howell v. BowenENR 1 M'Clell. & You. 383. The King v. Johnson 1 M'Clean & Rob. 1. Tinkler v. Rowland 6 Nev. & Man. 848. Edge v. Wandesford 9 Ir. Law Rep. 161. Powell v. SonnettENR 1 Bli. N......