Molins against Werby
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 83 E.R. 305
COURT OF KING'S BENCH
1 LIT. 77. MICH. 14 CAR. II. IN B. B. 305 molins against wekby. Error in fact and in law is double, but must be specially demurred to. S. C. 1 Sid. 94. 1 Keb. 355, 388. Error of a judgment in the Palace-Court, held before James Duke of Ormond ; and the error assigned was, that the Duke was not in Court, (the Court being held before one Wynne his deputy, according to the grant). Second error, that the judgment was given for the plaintiff, where it ought to have been for the defendant. Whereupon the defendant demurred ; and now for the plaintiff it was said, that the assignment of the error is double, the first being error in fact, the second error in law; arid error in fact and in law cannot be assigned on one writ: but as to the first, it was said, that it is not assignable, being contrary to the record. And as to the second, it was said, that he ought to have demurred for the doubleness, otherwise he shall not have advantage thereof on a general demurrer: to both which the Court agreed; and it being moved again, the Court held the same opinion in both the said points; and then it was touched, that a judicial place to hold a Court by deputy cannot be, and so held Foster, Chief Justice, and Twysden. But Wyndham held...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jaques v Caesar
...pi. 8. 1 Str. 684, Helbut v. Held, S. C. 2 Ld. Rayra. 1414. 1 Wils. 85. Bradburn v. Taylor, 2 Bac. Abr. 217. Cro. Jac. 28, Hudson v. Banks. 1 Lev. 76, Molins v. Wetby. Ibid. 310. 1 Salk. 262, Lampion v. Coltingwood; (u) or was for the advantage of party assigning it; 2 Bac. Abr. 220. 1 Str.......
-
Scott v Bennett
...Rex v. CarlileENR 2 B. & Ad. 362. Irwin v. Sir George GrayENRELR 19 C. B. N. S. 585; S. C. on Appeal, L. R. 1 C. P. 171. Molins v. WerbyENR 1 Lev. 76. Cole v. GreeneENR 1 Lev. 309. Huffer v. AllenELR L. R. 2 Exch. 15. The Earl of Glasgow v. The Hurlet and Campsie Alum CompanyENR 3 H. L. C. ......
-
The King against Roberts
...Abr. Officer and Officers (I), p. 115, (I, 2), p. 116; Phelps v. Winchcomb, 3 Bulst. 77; Midhurst v. Waite, 3 Bur. 1259; Molins v. Werby, 1 Lev. 76. 2. It was contended for the Crown, that, if the marquis had such a power, he- could appoint only by deed. On this point the following authorit......
-
Govern v Rowland
...v. LenaghanENR 2 Exch. 333. Hilyard v. Day 1 Jo. 270; cited in Coffee v. Rahily Rex v. CarlileENR 2 B. & Ad. 362. Molins v. WerbyENRENRENR 1 Lev. 76; S. C., 1 Sid. 94; S. C., 1 Keb. 355. Thompson v. Blackhurst 1 N. & Man. 266, 273. Ferguson v. MahonENR 11 Ad. & El. 179. Caulfield v. Hutchin......