Porzelius against Maddocks
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 January 1789 |
| Date | 28 January 1789 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 126 E.R. 60
IN THE COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
[101] porzelius against maddocks. Wednesday, Jan. 28th, 1789. Where a plaintiff has once proceeded to trial, judgment as in case of a nonsuit cannot be entered, for not proceeding to a new trial (a)3. The plaintiff obtained a verdict at the sittings after Easter term : in Trinity term a new trial was granted; to which he not having proceeded, Kerby Serjt., now moved for judgment, as in case of a nonsuit. Bat the Cuurt held, that where a plaintiff had once proceeded to trial, judgment (a)1 [See Gare v. Gapper, 3 East, 472. Gould v. Gapper, 5 East, 345. See also Curslake v. Maphdwam, 2 T. R. 473.] ; (a)3 [So where a wrong name is inserted, the proceedings will be set aside. Janes v.; Armytage, 2 Bos. & Pul. 38. Tidd's Pr. 166, 8th edit. But see Wilson v. Stafford, 2 Cbitty's R. 355. Badgdt v. Lee, ibid.] (V) Which requires the notice to be " A. B. you are served, &c." (c) Behema v. James, in which the Court of B. R. quashed a latitat for the same omission. (a)3 [So where the cause is made a remanet at the assizes. Mewburn v. Langley, 3 T. R. 1. Aliter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nortje en 'n Ander v Pool, NO
...dat die blote ongegronde verryking, los van enige bepaalde omstandighede, tot aanspreeklikheid aanleiding gee. Sien, bv. de Vos, op cit., bl. 101; 174 1966 (3) SA p101 en 201; Scholtens, Annual Survey, 1956, bl. 185. Dit is opvallend dat ander gesaghebbende skrywers nie die bestaan van hier......
-
Bonne Fortune Beleggings Bpk v Kalahari Salt Works (Pty) Ltd en Andere
...Ek wil die uitlatings van die Appelafdeling in hierdie ver-band (Moaki v. Reckitt & Colman (Africa) Ltd. and Another, 1968 (3) S.A. 98 op bl. 101; Kgobane and Another v. Minister of Justice A and Another, 1969 (3) S.A. 365 op bl. 369) met eerbied beklemtoon en daarop wys dat hierdie geding ......
-
Schoultz v Voorsitter, Personeel-Advieskomitee van die Munisipale Raad van George, en 'n Ander
...het dat hy Du Preez se vraag misverstaan het, nl dat hy verstaan het of Du Preez wou weet of hy al vantevore formeel aangekla en verhoor is (bl 101). Applikant self se dat hy nooit beweer het dat hy vergeet het (bl 88). Wat betref die vorige klagtes self, beweer raadslid Heunis dat hulle "o......
-
Rondalia Versekeringskorporasie van Suid-Afrika Bpk v Lemmer
...nooit die bedoeling kon gehad het om in art. 11 bis (1) die verskaffing van besonderhede op hierdie wyse te magtig nie. Kyk Steyn, op. cit. bl. 101 - 3; Principal Immigration Officer v Bhula, 1931 AD 323 te bl. 1966 (2) SA p253 333. Dus word dit betoog dat die vereiste om 'n mediese verslag......