Phillipson and Another against Mangles
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 November 1809 |
| Date | 10 November 1809 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 103 E.R. 1103
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
phillipson and another against mangles. Friday, Nov. 10th, 1809. An allegation in a declaration, with a prout patet, &c. that the plaintiffs by the judgment of the Court recovered against the bail, is not proved by the production of the recognizance of bail and the scire facias roll, which latter concluded in the common form.-Therefore it is considered that the plaintiffs have their execution thereupon against the bail: for this is an award of execution-, or at most a judgment of execution, and not a judgment to recover. In an action for a false return to a testatum fieri facias against the bail, the declaration stated that the plaintiffs in the 48 Gr. 3, in B. E. by the consideration and judgment of the same Court recovered against E. N. and J. C., bail of P. N., 541. 10s., which was adjudged to the plaintiffs in and [517] by the said Court for their damages by them sustained as well for not performing certain promises made by the said P. N. unto the plaintiffs, as for their costs and charges, &c. whereof the said E. N. and J. C. were convicted; prout patet per recordum. The proof of this averment was an office copy of the recognizance of the bail, and an office copy of the scire facias roll, which concluded in the common form.-Therefore it is considered that the said plaintiffs have their execution thereupon against the bail. And no other judgment is given. Upon this variance the plaintiffs were nonsuited at the trial before Lord Ellenborough C.J. at the last sittings; and Garrow now took...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v Pope
...roll, which concluded in the common form, that the plaintiffs should have execution against the bail: the variance was held to be fatal. 11 East, 516, Phillipson v. Mangles. (ij) The omission to aver that the commitment is of record, is matter of special demurrer only. 2 B. Moore, 561, Barn......
-
O'Loughlin v Fogarty, and Another
...WoodENR 2 Salk. 659. The Queen v. Drake ib. 660. Bevan v. JonesENR 4 B. & C. 403. Gadd v. BennettENR 5 Price, 540. Phillpson v. ManglesENR 11 East, 516. Purcell v. M'NamaraENR 9 East, 161. H. T. 1842. Esvh.ofPleas. SONDER V. DARCY. 54 CASES AT LAW. repugnancy or inconsistency where none pre......
-
Hopkins v Francis
...(1 H. Bl. 49), Muckenlieck v. Bushnell (4 Dowl. P. C. 139; 1 Scott, 509), Blackmwe y. Flumyng (7 T. R. 446), and P/tilipson v. Mangles (11 East, 516). [Parke, B. Those eases have nothing to do with this question. It is only necessary to shew a recovery by a. judgment; whether that is obtain......
-
JOHN CONLAN, Assignee of the Assignees of JAMES BAKER v The Heir and Tertenants of THOMAS BODKIN
...Heir and Tertenants of THOMAS BODKIN. Farran v. Ottiwell 5 Ir. Law Rep. 487. Farrell v. Gleeson Vide post, p. 477. Philips v. ManglesENR 11 East, 516. Executors of Wright v. NuttENR 1 T. R. 388. Stewart v. CottinghamUNK 6 Ir. Eq. Rep. 256. Oƒ€™Brien v. RamENRENR 3 Mod. 187; S. C. Carth......