Obrian v Ramm
| 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. 622
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
See Beck v. Pierce, 1889, 23 Q. B. D. 320; In re Parkin [1892], 3 Ch. 519.
obrian versus eamh. Mich. 3 Jac. II. B. E. Eot. 192. Judgment in Easter-Term 1 Willi'. [See Beck v. Pierce, 1889, 23 Q. B. D. 320; In re Parkin [1892], 3 Ch. 519.] 3 Mod. 170, 186, S. C. Comb. 103, S. C. 3 Danv. 312, pi. 10. 1 Danv. 719, pi. 7. Judgment against a feme sole, who afterwards married, and then the plaintiff brought a sci. fa. against husband and wife, and had judgment against them to have execution, and then the wife died, the husband shall be liable. 1 Eo. Abr, 777, pi. 6. 8 Co. 143, Dr. Drury's ca.s. Bro. Abr. tit. Baron and Feme, pi. 27. 1 H. 5, 5 a. 43 Ed. 3, 2 b. 1 Inat. 290 b. 1 Mod. 179. Sid. 337. Error of a judgment given in the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, and affirmed in B. E. there ; the case was : Ss. Judgment in debt was obtained by Eamm against a feme sole, who afterwards married the plaintiff Sir Donald Obrian, and then Eamm brought a sci. fa. on that judgment in B. C. in Ireland, against husband and wife, to have execution thereof; and after two nihils returned, judgment was had against them to have execution, and a year and a day expired before any execution was executed, and then the wife died ; and afterwards Eamm brought another sci. fa. against the husband alone, to have execution of the said judgment. The defendant Obrian (the husband) pleaded a frivolous plea, to which the * 13 Eliz. cap. 7. * 31 Eliz. cap. 6. CARTHEW, 31. TERM. PASCH. 1 W. AND M. B. R. 623 plaintiff demurred, and judgment was given for Eamtn in C. B. in Ireland, which was affirmed in B. R. there; and now a writ of error was brought in the Court of the King's Bench here, and the error assigned was matter in law, (viz.) that Obrian (the husband) was not liable to an execution upon this judgment after...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Obrian against Ram
...executionem non against the husband alone; for he cannot plead the former judgment on the first scire facias in bar.-S. C. Comb. 103. S. C. Carth. 30. S. C. Holt, 97. Co. Lit. 351. 1 Mod. 179 1 Sid. 837. Skin. 682. 1 Salk. 116. Lutw. 671. 2 Ld. Ray. 1050. 1 Vern. 396. 2 Vern. 118, 249. Free......
-
William Farran, - Plaintiff in Error; John Claudius Beresford and Catherine Mary Ottiwell, - Defendants in Error
...them. Every revival of a judgment is a new judgment, and not an award of execution ; O'Brien v. Earn, (3 Mod. 170, 186 ; S.C. Comb. 103 ; Carth. 30 ; Hob. 97); and the law now declares that you shall not enforce a judgment after 20 years, unless it falls within the exceptions in the Act. To......
-
Anonymous (1792) 1 Com 31
...debt in the present case is not altered. (a)1 Co. Litt. 351 b. (a)2 Comb. 103. Holt 97, S. C. 3 Mod. 186, S. C. 170, with the pleadings. Carth. 30, S. C. (1) This case is known by the name of Obrian versus Earn. (b) Comb. 455. Garth. 415, S. C. 1 Salk. 116. 3 Salk. 63, S. C. 1 Com. Dig. 555......
-
John Claudius Beresford and Catherine Mary Ottiwell v William Farran,
...and CATHERINE MARY OTTIWELL and WILLIAM FARRAN, 6 Law Rec. 2d ser. 10. Ram v. O'BrienENRENRENRENR 3 Mod. 170; S. C. Comb. 108; S. C. Carth. 30; S. C. Holt. 97. Maddox v. Bond Ir. T. R. 332. Reniger v. Fogossa Plowd. 9. Trexivan v. Lawrence 2 Ld. Rayd. 1050. Saunders' ReportsENR 2 Saund. 71.......