Page v Newman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 May 1829 |
| Date | 08 May 1829 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 108 E.R. 1124
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
For subsequent proceedings see 9 B. & C. 378.
page against newman. 1828. A suit commenced in K. B. by latitat, may be well continued by a bill of Middlesex, sued out by the plaintiff, with intent to implead the defendant for the same causes of action. [For subsequent proceedings see 9 B. & C. 378.] Declaration on a promissory note of the defendant, dated the 18th of April 1814. Plea, that the causes of action mentioned in the declaration did not accrue within six years next before the exhibiting the plaintiff's bill. Eeplication, that within six years after the several causes of action accrued to the plaintiff, to wit, on the 30th of June 1819, in the 59 G. 3, he, plaintiff, for recovery of his damages sustained by him, by reason of the not performing the several promises and undertakings in the said declaration mentioned, sued out a latitat, (whereby, after reciting a previous bill of Middlesex commanding the sheriff of that county to take the defendant and him safely keep, so that he might have his body to answer the plaintiff in a plea of trespass, and also ta a bill of the plaintiff to be exhibited against the defendant for 3001., upon promises, and a return thereto of non est inventus;) the King commanded the Sheriff of Kent to take the defendant, [490] &c. to answer the plaintiff in the plea, and the bill aforesaid. It then set out a return of non est inventus, and the non-appearance of the defendant, and then stated that the plaintiff prayed another latitat to the Sheriff of Kent, returnable on Monday next after eight days of St. Hilary, for the defendant to answer in the plea and to the bill aforesaid; and that on that day in the Court of (a) See Doe dem. Chure v. Smith, 5 Taunt. 795. SB. &C.491. PAGE' V. NEWMAN 1125 King's Bench at Westminster, came the plaintiff, by his attorney aforesaid, and offered himself against the defendant in the plea and bill aforesaid; and the Sheriff of Kent did not send the last-mentioned writ, nor did he do any thing thereupon, nor did the defendant come or appear in the Court of King's Bench, according to the exigency of the said writ. The replication, after stating similar continuances from term to term to Easter term 1826, proceeded thus:-Wherefore the plaintiff, for recovery of his damages by him sustained by reason of the not performing of the said promises and undertakings in the said declaration mentioned, prayed another precept, called a bill of Middlesex, against the defendant in form aforesaid, and it was granted to him, returnable before our lord the now King at Westminster, on Friday next after the morrow of The Holy Trinity, for the defendant to answer the plaintiff in the plea and the bill aforesaid, and the same day, &c. After stating the appearance of the plaintiff and defendant it averred, that the said several writs, and the said last-mentioned precept respectively, were so sued and prosecuted by the plaintiff against the defendant as aforesaid, with intent to implead the defendant upon and for the said several causes of action in the said declaration mentioned, and to cause and compel the defendant to appear in the said Court here, in order that the plaintiff might, upon such appearance, exhibit his bill, and declare against him, defendant, for [491] the said several causes of action in the said declaration mentioned, &c. And the plaintiff afterwards, in Trinity term in the 7 G. 4, exhibited his bill, and declared thereon against the defendant, to wit, at, &c. Averment, that the said several causes of action did accrue to the plaintiff within six years before the issuing of the first-mentioned writ, in manner and form, &c. Rejoinder, that no precept, called a bill of Middlesex, against the defendant was sued out or prosecuted by the plaintiff, previously to the said prayer of the plaintiff of another precept called a bill of Middlesex, and so sued and prosecuted by plaintiff against the defendant, as in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Nadefinco Ltd; Trengganu State Economic Development Corporation
- Hara Industries Sdn Bhd and Another; Public Bank Bhd
-
Costello and Dickhoff v. Calgary (City), (1997) 209 A.R. 1 (CA)
...[para. 68]. Eyben v. K.R. Ranches (1970) Ltd. (1982), 38 A.R. 336 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68]. Page v. Newman (1829), 9 B. & C. 378; 109 E.R. 140, refd to. [para. British Pacific Properties Ltd. v. British Columbia (Minister of Highways), [1960] S.C.R. 561, refd to. [para. 74]. Mannix v......
-
Tehno-Impex v Gebr. Van Weelde Scheepvaartkantoor B.v
...put by the courts on the words "a sum certain" and "a certain time" and the notice of demand. Note that Lord Tenterden both in Page v. Newman and in his statute confined his rules about interest to trial by jury: because of the "great inconvenience" it entailed. He deliberately did not appl......