Potter v Turnor Intrat' Hill
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1721 |
| Date | 01 January 1721 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 81 E.R. 1033
King's Bench Division
Disapproved, Morton v. Burn, 1837, 7 Ad. & E. 26.
[185] potter vers turnor intrat' hill' 18 jac. banco regis. [Disapproved, Morton v. Burn, 1837, 7 Ad. & E. 26.] In debt aur assumpsit les parties fuer al issue sur le assumpsit, & trove pur le pit'. Et Reeve move in arrest de judgment, que n'est sufficient consideration. Le case fuit tiel, Tumor le defendant fuit lie al J. Barwicke in obligation de 301. Et Barwicke fuit tenus in obligacon al Potter de 501. le plaintiff Barwicke set over & assigne le debt due a luy p le defendant al plaintiff; et fait Ire d'attorney al pit' de receive le argent de Turnor le defendant pur luy al use le plaintiff; et p ceo done a luy power de suer pur ceo, ou de release ceo, pur q le plaintiff' demand le dit 301. del defendant; q a luy assume & pmise, q si le plaintiff voile forbeare & done a luy respite tanq^ al Sturbridge Faire, q donqj il voyle ceo payer; et ore K. B. x.-33* 1034 PASCHJE 19 JAC. BANG. REGIS PALKBB, 188. le question eat, si soit sufficient consideration ou nemy; et luy see q nemy, in tant q le plaintiff n'ad que un poyer a recover le debt, & suer pur ceo; & pt estre q (levant Sturbridge Faire Barwicke voyle suer le defendant pur ceo nient obatant cest promise del pit'; & s'il sue pur ceo, donq^ le defendant n'ad ascun benefit p cest pmise ; pur q ne serra lie per ceo, nient pluis q 9 E. 4. 19. & novel entries 707. Si A. ad les charters. B. & B. pmise, q si A. voile deliver les charters a luy, q il doner a luy 1001. & il deliver, uncore n'avera debt sur le pmise; quia B. n'ad quid pro quo: & issint eat Banes case 9 Eep. 94. Si executor praise debt due p testator, si voile forbeare un moia, ne serra lie, si n'ad assets; et issint icy le plaintiff ad un authority, & nul interest in cest obligation, pur q ne poit assume, q le defendant ne serra aue tano_ jour limitt, car devat ceo son authority poit eatre revoke, & issint nul benefit al defendant. Whitlocke contra; il respond q n'est ascun revocation del authority devant Sturbridge Faire, pur q benefit continue, & coaideratio auxi; & a posse ad esse non valet argumentum; auxi n'est nude authority pur suer; mes apiert p breve de attorney, q ad interest; auxi poit ceo recover a son use defn in satisfaction de son debt. Et 19 H. 6. tiel attorney poit justifie in maintenance. Et il cite un Rep. Mich. 16 Jacobi Williams vers. Lister. Et aut' 43 Eliz. Spight vers...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forth and Others v Stanton, Widow
...to sue. Hard. 71, Reynolds v. Prosser. 1 Vent. 153, Oble v. DiUlesfiekl. 1 Rol. Abr. 29, pi. 60; though Potter v. Turner, Winch, 7, arid Palm. 185, S. C. was decided to the contrary : but this is contradicted by all the other authorities.(ffl) If forbearance to sue, by an assignee of a debt......
-
Morton against Burn and Vaux
...detriment to the plaintiff. Without some explanation of this kind, the case is inconsistent with the authorities. [22] In Potter v. Turnm- (Palm. 185. Winch, 7), the defendant had given a bond for 301. to J. B., who had given a bond for 501. to the plaintiff: and J. B. assigned to the plain......
-
Persona designata, punitive purposes and the issue of preventative detention orders: all roads lead to infringement of the separation of judicial power.
...process. While this function was not sufficient to render the issue of telephonic interception warrants an invalid function in Grollo v Palmer, (185) the very nature of the outcomes are different. In that case, the majority noted a number of unique issues, including The judicial method of d......