Powys Executor de Lloyd v John Williams
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1704 |
| Date | 01 January 1704 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 125 E.R. 880
Common Pleas Division
880 APPENDIX 2 1.11TWYCIIE, 1601. in insult' & verberaCone ejusdeFri Gabriel' seu publics declaravit seipsum eundem Franeura Barry dolore inde affectum esse secundum arbitriurn & appunctusteonem predict' In facto idem Gabriel die qd' predict' FranCus non solvit seu solvi causavit eidem Gabriel' predict' surliam quinquagint' librarum super vel ante predict' quintum decimum diem Januarii in arbitrio predict' superius menconat' quam ei super vel ante eundem diem solvisse seu solvi causasse debuit secundum formans & effect= arbitrii illius Et hoc parat' est verificare undo pe? Judicium & debitum strum predict' una cum dampnis suis oceone deteneonis debiti illius sibi adjudicari &c. Demurrer & Joinder en Demurrer. Ceux Exceptions fueront prise per le Counsel del Def. 1. Que regard fuit void, pur coo que ne fuit final en soy mesme, Ines ad referre ceo al Pl. magma d'appointer un convenient temps & lieu pur le Def. a faire son submission &c. Et pur ceo, 1 Rolls Rep. 271. 1 Rolls Abr. 250 & 251. p. 10, 11, & 13, fueront cite. 2. Qua regard fuit void, pur ceo que fuit d'un part solement, car riens fuit agard d'estre fait al Def. per le Plaititiff, forsque que le Pl. releaseroit al luy apron que it ad fait submission & acknowledgment de son offence lou & quand le Pt. appointeroit, & ceo ii ne fuit oblige a faire, pur ceo que cet part de regard fuit void. 3. Que le Replicat' (nit male, pur ceo que le Defendant en son Barr alledge, que ad pay les 50 I. agard d'estre pay per luy al Pl. & le Pl. en son Replicat' ad positivement deny que le Pl. n'ad pay coo, issint que la fuit un direct affirmative, & un direct negative, & done le Pl. duissoit aver prise issue our ceo. 4. Que le Plaintiff per son Replicat' dit, que le Arbitrator ad fait arbitrium predict', que de necessity referrera al arbitrament monstre en le Barr, & done it ne poet alledger a,scun auter arbitrament, car ceo serroit un departure de ceo que fuit dit devant per luy, viz, que 1'Arbitrator fecit arbitrium predict. Reap. 1. Except. Quant al primer Exception fuit respond per le Counsel del Pl. que le main substance del agard fuit, qua le Def. payeroit al Plaintiff 50 I. en satisfaction de Battery commit per le Def. sur le Pl. &c. & gee le appointment de temps & lieu pur le Def. a faire son submission, fuit foreq; un circumstantial chose, & nemy asc' judicial Act, que tie ferra Pagard d'estre void. Et pur ceo Carter & Startute's Case, Stiles 217. Beale & Beale's 1 Cro. 383. fueront cite. [1601] Rasp. 2. Quant al second Exception fuit respond, quo lea 50 1. fueront agard d'estre pay en Satisfaction de lea Costs & Damages occasion per le Battery del Plaintiff, & pur ceo le Plaintiff ad satisfaction pur injury fait a luy, & le Defendant per ceo voile ware discharge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M'Dowell v Bergin
...Ir. Com. Law Rep. 598. Slade's case 4 Co. 93. Lambert v. TaylorENR 4 B. & C. 138. The King v. DeathENR Cro. Jac. 513. Powys v. WilliamsENR 2 Lutw. 1601. Beaufort v. BertyENR 1 P. Wms. 703. Swan v. PorterENR Hardr. 60. Bullen v. GervisENR Hutt. 53. Rex v. MildmayENR 5 B. & Ad. 254. Slade's c......
-
Priscilla Web, Window, v Moore
...HILL. ANNO 2 AND 3 W. AND M. IN C. B. 2 VENTRIS, 282. [282] priscilla web, widow, versus moore. Outlawry pleaded in bar. See Co. Lit. 128. 2 Lutw. 1601, 1512, 1514. Instit. Leg. 405, 494, 540. 3 Salk. 282. The plaintiff declared in an action upon the case upon five several promises, one whe......