Peacock v Bell and Kendal
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 85 E.R. 81
COURT OF KING'S BENCH
See Mayor of London v. Cox, 1867, L. R. 2 H. L. 259; Scott v. Bennett, 1871, L. R. 5 H. L. 248; Cooke v. Gill, 1873, L. R. 8 C. P. 114; Oulton v. Radcliffe, 1874, L. R. 9 C. P. 194.
[69] 12. peacock versus bell and kendal. Mich. 18 Car. II. Regis, Eol. 230. [See Mayor of London v. Cox, 1867, L. R. 2 H. L. 259 ; Scott v. Bennett, 1871, L. R. 5 H. L. 248; Cooke v. Gill, 1873, L. R. 8 C. P. 114; Oulton v. Baddiffe, 1874, L. R. 9 C. P. 194.] Writ of error. England, to wit.-Our lord the King has sent to his justices itinerant, in the county of Durham and Sadberg, and other his justices in the same county, and to every of them, his writ close in these words, to wit: Charles, the Second, by the grace of God, of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the faith, &c. to our justices itinerant in the county of Durham and Sadberg, and to our other justices in the same county, and to every of them, greeting; forasmuch as in the record and process, and also in the giving, of judgment of the plaint which was before you in our Court, in the said county, by our writ between Richard Bell and Benjamin Kendal, and John Peacock alderman, of a certain plea of trespass upon the case, done by the said John to the said Richard and Benjamin, manifest error has intervened, as it is said, to the great damage of the said John, as from his complaint we have been informed, we, being willing that the error, if any there be, should be duly amended, and full and speedy justice done to the said parties in this behalf, command you that if judgment be thereon given, you send to us, openly and distinctly, under your seal, the said record and process, with all things touching the same, and this writ, so that we may have the same, from the day of St. Martin, in fifteen days, wheresoever we shall then be in England, that inspecting the said record and process we cause further to be done therein for amending the said error, what of right, and according to the law and custom of our realm of England, shall be meet to be done. Witness ourself at Westminster, the 24th day of August, in the 18th year of our reign. On the 24th day of September, in the 18th year of King Charles the Second, by the Court; the answer of the justices of our lord the King within written; the execution of this writ appears in a certain schedule annexed to this writ. John [70] (4) So is Dyer, 287 a. in the margin. 82 PEACOCK V. BELL AND KEN DAL 1 WMS. SAUND. 71. Tempest, John Morland. This writ is allowed by us, John Tempest, William Bellasys, John Morland. Durham, to wit. Pleas at Durham, before W. Blakiston, Esq., Samuel Davison, Esq., William Bellasys senior, Esq., Lewis Hall, Esq. and John Morland, Esq. and their fellows, justices itinerant of our lord the now King, in the county of Durham and Sadberg, of his Session or Court of Pleas holden at Durham the 6th day of Juno, in the 18th year of the reign of our Lord Charles the Second, by the grace of God, of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the faith, &c. Durham, to wit. Richard Bell and Benjamin Kendal put in their place Ralph Adamson their attorney against John Peacock, late of the City of Durham, in the said county, alderman, of a plea of trespass upon the case. Durham, to wit. John Peacock, late of the City of Durham, in the said county, alderman, puts in his place Christopher Bell, his attorney, against the said Richard Bell and Benjamin Kendal, of a plea of trespass upon the case. Durham, to wit. John Peacock, late of the City of Durham, in the said county, alderman, was attached to answer Richard Bell and Benjamin Kendal, of a plea wherefore, whereas the said John, on the llth day of November, in the 17th year of the reign of our Lord Charles the Second, now King of England, &c. at the City of Durham, in the said county, was indebted to the said Richard and Benjamin in 391. of lawful money of England, for divers wares and merchandises by the said Richard and Benjamin before that time sold and delivered to the said John Peacock at his special instance and request; and being so indebted, he the said John, in consideration thereof, undertook, and then and there faithfully promised the said Richard and Benjamin, that he the said John Peacock would well and faithfully pay and content the said 391. to the said Richard and Benjamin when he should be thereunto requested : yet the said John not regarding his said promise and undertaking in form aforesaid made, but contriving and fraudulently intending craftily and subtily to deceive and defraud them the said Richard and Benjamin of the said 391. has not yet paid the said 391. or any penny thereof, to the said Richard and Benjamin, or any ways contented them for the same, (although so to do the said John afterwards, to wit, on the last day of November, in the said 17th year of the reign of our Lord Charles the Second, now King of England, [71] &c. at the City oif Durham, in the said county, was often requested by the said Richard and Benjamin,) but to pay the same to them, or in any ways to content them for the same, has altogether refused, and still refuses, to the damage of the said Richard and Benjamin of 401. &c.* And whereupon the said Richard and Benjamin, by Ralph Adamson their attorney, complain, that whereas the said John, on the llth day of November.'in the 17th year of the reign of our Lord Charles the Second, now King of England, &c. at the City of Durham, in the said county, was indebted to the said Richard and Benjamin in 391. of lawful money of England, for divers wares and merchandises by the said Richard and Benjamin before that time sold and delivered to the said John Peacock at his special instance and request; and being so indebted, he the said John, in consideration thereof, undertook, and then and there faithfully promised the said Richard and Benjamin, that he the said John Peacock would well and faithfully pay and content the said 391. to the'said Richard and Benjamin when he should be thereunto requested; yet the said John, not regarding his said promise and undertaking in form aforesaid made, but contriving and fraudulently intending craftily and subtily to deceive and defraud them the said Richard and Benjamin of the said 391. has not yet paid the said 391. or any penny thereof, to the said Richard and Benjamin, or any ways contented them for the same, (although so to do the said John afterwards, to wit, on the last day of November, in the said 17th year of the reign of our Lord Charles the Second, now King of England, &c. at the City of Durham, in the said county, was often requested by the said Richard and Benjamin,) but to pay the same to them, or in any ways to content them for the same, has altogether refused, and still refuses, to the damage of the said Richard and Benjamin of 401. &c.; and therefore they bring suit, &c. And the said John by Christopher Bell, his attorney, comes and defends the wrong and injury when, &c. and prays leave to imparl thereto here, until the 23d day * See post, 318, note (3). I WMS. 8AUHD. 73. PASCH^E, 19 CAR. II. REGIS 83 of June instant, and he has it, &c.; the same day is given to the said Eichard and Benjamin here, &c. At which day here come as well the said Richard and Benjamin as the said John, by their said attornies ; and thereupon the said John further prays leave to imparl thereto here, until the 14th day of July next following: and he has it &c.; the same day is given to the said Richard and Benjamin here, &c. At which day here come as well the said Richard and Benjamin as the said John, by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2010) 410 N.R. 1 (SCC)
...v. Canadian Liberty Net et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626; 224 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 42]. Peacock v. Bell (1667), 1 Wms. Saund. 73; 85 E.R. 84, refd to. [para. 43]. R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 44]. R. v. Morgentaler et al. (1984), 6 O.A.C. 53; ......
-
Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2016 SCC 52
...Inc. v. Davidson, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; Ordon Estate v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437; Peacock v. Bell (1667), 1 Wms. Saund. 73, 85 E.R. 84; Bisaillon v. Keable, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 60; R. v. McClure, 2001 SCC 14, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445; Canada (National Revenue) v. Thompson, 2016 SCC 21, [2016] 1 S.......
-
TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2010) 273 O.A.C. 1 (SCC)
...v. Canadian Liberty Net et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626; 224 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 42]. Peacock v. Bell (1667), 1 Wms. Saund. 73; 85 E.R. 84, refd to. [para. 43]. R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 44]. R. v. Morgentaler et al. (1984), 6 O.A.C. 53; ......
-
S v Malinde and Others
...v Knight 1935 AD 342 at 344 - 5; R v Velshi 1953 (2) SA 553 (A) at 561A - D; S v Majola 1982 (1) SA 125 (A) at 133H; Peacock v Bell & Kendal 85 ER 84 at 87 - 8; Halliwell v Johannesburg Municipality 1912 AD 392; De Bruin v Director of Education H 1934 AD 252 at 258; Lenz Township Co v Loren......
-
A JUDICIARY CLEAVED: SUPERIOR COURTS, STATUTORY COURTS AND THE ILLOGIC OF DIFFERENCE.
...(13) Ibid at para 35. The "inherent jurisdiction" was also explained as a residual jurisdiction in Peacock v Bell (1667), 1 Wms Saund 73, 85 ER 84 at 87-88: "the rule for jurisdiction is that nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of the superior court but that which specif......
-
Legal Policy Analysis
...to be within the jurisdiction of an Inferior Court but that which is so expressly alleged”: Peacock v. Bell (1667), 1 Wms. Saund. 73, 85 E.R. 84, at pp. 87-88 . . . . 47 In Canada, this incantation has a constitutional dimension grounded in sections 96 to 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867 ,......
-
The Trials and Tribulations of the Federal Courts' Jurisdiction
...(Human Rights Commission) v Canadian Liberty Net , [1998] 1 SCR 626 at para 27 [ Liberty Net ]. 13 Peacock v Bell (1667), 1 Wms Saund 73, 85 ER 84 at 87–88, cited with approval in Tele-Zone , above note 2 at para 43. See also Ordon Estate v Grail , [1998] 3 SCR 437 [ Ordon Estate ] at para ......
-
Civil Procedure in Context
...of superior Courts was laid down at least as early as 1667 in the case of Peacock v. Bell and Kendall (1667), 1 Wms. Saund. 73 at p. 74, 85 ER 84: . . . And the rule for jurisdiction is, that nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a Superior Court, but that which specif......