Macgeorge and Others, Assiguees of Vanderas, a Bankrupt, v Birch
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 June 1812 |
| Date | 16 June 1812 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 128 E.R. 459
Common Pleas Division
in goods from the beginning of the purchase, yet not be both liable to the vendor : as if the parties agree amongst themselves that one house shall purchase the goods, and let the other into an interest in them, that other being unknown to the vendor ; such a case the vendor could not recover against him, although such other person would have the benefit of the goods. On this and other reasons, I am of opinion the present verdict ought not to be disturbed. Rule discharged. (584] Muwara, &mantilla' ; 'renant ; Vouchee. June 16, 1812. Under the rule of Court, Hilary 14 Geo. 3, attornies of the Court of Great Sessions in Wales are not competent to take the acknowledgment of a warrant of attorney for suffering a recovery. Best Serjt. moved that this recovery might pass. There were five parties, three of whom resided at Bath, and two in Wales. The proceedings as to the three at Bath were regular; but the persons making the affidavit of the acknowledgment of the warrants of attorney of the two who resided in Wales, were not attornies of either of the courts at Westminster, but only attornies of the Court of Great Sessions in Wales. He contended that this was sufficient, because there were no attornies of the courts of Westminster to be found in Wales, and therefore the rule of Hil. 14 Geo. 3 did not apply, and he relied on a precedent of a recovery having been suffered in 1802, by Lord Kirkewall, which was permitted by Chambre J. at his chambers, to pass, although the warrant of attorney was acknowledged in Wales under similar circumstances. [Chanibre J. That was upon very strong affidavits that there were no attornies of the courts of Westminster residing in the neighbourhood.] Best Serjt. It appears here by the affidavit, that search was made, and none could be found. Gums J. That is a very good reason for altering the rule of court, but not for breaking through it, as it is now established. HEATH J. This is a nullity, it is no warrant of attorney, unless it be taken according to the rule of this court. CHAMBRE J. observed that there was another objection : the affidavit did not state that the party knew [585] the warrant of attorney was intended to pass their estates tail. Best. It [thews in the introductory part of the affidavit, that he knew it was for the purpose of suffering a common recovery. Per Curiam. That is riot enough...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilbraham v Snow
...Eep. 294, Ledlrury v. Smith. Ibid. 643, Sex v. Sheriff' of Devon ; or would stay the proceedings in an action against the sheriff. 4 Taunt. 585, M'George v. Birch. 7 Taunt. 294, King v. Bridges. 1 B. Moore, 43, S. C. Chitt. Eep. 577, Probinia v. Roberts. It is entirely discretionary with th......
-
Bernasconi and Others against Fairbrother and Winchester, Sheriffs of Middlesex, and Henry Wilton
...20. 1 Bl. 65), Raines v. Nelson (2 BU Eep. 1181), James v. Terry (Tidd's Pr. 8th edit. 1057), M'George and Others, Assignees, v. Birch (4 Taunt. 585), -Ledbwry v. Smith (1 Chit. Kep. 294). Lord Tenterden C.J. The Court will give the sheriff all the protection due to a public officer when he......
-
Etchells v Lovatt
...Assignees, djij. v. liobertx (I Chitty, 577), Rex v. The Sli&riff of Devon (ib. ( 43), Mac,Gi;ori/e mid Others, Assignees, c. v. Birch (4 Taunt. 585), King and Another, Assignees, &u. v. Bridges (1 B, Moore, 43). And he cited Tidd's Practice (vol. 2, p. 1033-4 (7th edition), where it is sai......