Pray and Others against Edie
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 June 1786 |
| Date | 28 June 1786 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 99 E.R. 1087
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Referred to, Raeburn v. Andrews, 1874, L. R. 9 Q. B. 120; Crozat v. Brogden [1894], 2 Q. B. 34.
pray and others against edie. Monday, May 29th, 1786. If the plaintiff reside-abroad, the Court will stay proceedings till he give security for the costs. [Referred to, Eaeburn v. Andrews, 1874, L. E. 9 Q. B. 120; Crozat v. Brogden [1894], 2 Q. B. 34.] Wilson had obtained a rule on a former day to shew cause why the proceedings in, this cause should not be stayed, till the plaintiff, who resided at Georgia, in North America, gave security for the costs, in case a verdict was given against him. Law, for the plaintiff, now contended that such a rule had never been granted but under very particular circumstances to induce the Court to grant it; and he cited 2 Burr. 1026. 4 Burr. 2105, & Cowp. 158. Buller, J. There have been several late cases to the contrary ; and for this reason, that if a verdict be given against the plaintiff' he is not within the reach of our law so as to have process served upon him for the costs. Per Curiam (a)3, rule absolute.
English Reports Citation: 99 E.R. 1113
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
The statute was afterwards repealed; by st. 28 Geo. 3, c. 56. See post, p. 464.
[313] pray and others against edie. Wednesday, June 28th, 1786. If an agent residing abroad effect a policy without inserting his name as agent, such policy is void by 25 Geo. 3, c. 44. Qu. Whether an agent, effecting a policy for his principal residing abroad, must not reside in England ? [The statute was afterwards repealed; by st. 28 Geo. 3, c. 56. See post, p. 464/] In a case upon a policy of assurance on a ship and its cargo from Sunbury in Georgia to Amsterdam, it was agreed that a verdict should be taken for the plaintiffs, and that the defendant's counsel should have the liberty of moving the Court to set it aside, and enter a verdict for the defendant (without costs,) if upon the construction (a) Vide 3 Burr. 1637. 1114 PRAY V. EDIE IT. R. 314. of the 25 Geo. 3, c. 44, the Court should be of opinion, that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover. The cause was tried before Buller, J. at the sittings after last Easter terra, at Guildhall; when it appeared, that the plaintiffs lived in Georgia, and had formerly been owners of the vessel, but before May 1785 had transferred their property in her to one Pierce who resided in the same country. The names of the plaintiffs were at the head of the policy, which was underwritten by the defendant in September 1785 ; and the declaration stated that they had made it for the benefit of Pierce, in whom the interest was averred to be. These were all the facts which were material in the present case; and upon these two questions arose. 1st, whether, when an agent effects a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amex Electrical Ltd. v. 726934 Alberta Ltd. et al., 2014 ABQB 66
...Noticed: 475878 Alberta Ltd. et al. v. Help-U-Sell Inc. et al. (2001), 294 A.R. 151; 2001 ABQB 517, refd to. [para. 41]. Pray v. Edie (1786), 99 E.R. 1087 (K.B.), refd to. [para. Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. 1401057 Alberta Ltd. (2013), 579 A.R. 152; 2013 ABQB 748, refd to. [para. 41]. Tr......
- Commodity Ocean Transport Corporation v Basford Unicorn Industries Ltd (Mito)
-
Bronson et al. v. Hewitt et al., 2007 BCSC 1751
...in which their discretion with respect to ordering security for costs should be exercised. In Pray et al. v. Edie (1786), 1 T.R. 267, 99 E.R. 1087, Buller, J., in referring to the decisions in Maxwell v. Mayer , supra, Bosewell v. Irish , supra, and Nuncomar v. Burdett , supra, said that th......
-
Gilman v Crowly
...694. Clooney v. WatsonIR 2 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 58. Smith v. ParkhurstENR 3 Atk. 136. Lord Clanricarde's caseENR Hob. 277. Pray v. EdieENR 1 T. R. 313. Miller v. SalomonsENR 7 East, 559, 560. Rex v. The Justices of Bucks 2 Man. & Sel. 230. Rex v. ScottENR 3 T. R. 603. The Attorney-General v. T......