Prigmore against Bradley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 May 1805 |
| Date | 03 May 1805 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 1307
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
[314] pkigmore against bradley. Friday, May 3d, 1805. An appearance entered after the essoign day and before the day of full term may be entered as of the preceding term ; and therefore a non pros entered after the second term for want of declaring before the end of such second term is good. Marryat moved for a rule to shew cause why a judgment of non pros and execution thereon should not be set aside for irregularity with costs, and the money levied be restored. The plaintiff proceeded by bill; the process was returnable the first return of last Michaelmas term, and the appearance was not entered till the 22d of January, after the essoign day of last Hilary term, the day before the commencement of full term. And the question was, whether an appearance so entered could be entered as of Michaelmas term preceding 1 If it might, then the non pros signed on the 6th of March for want of declaring was regular; otherwise not. The stat. 13 Car. 2, st. 2, s. 3, enacts, that upon appearance to be entered in the term wherein such process, &c. is returnable, the bond for appearance shall be discharged; and unless the plaintiff shall declare " before the end of the term next following after appearance, then a nonsuit for want of a declaration...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Inwood against Robert Richard Mawley, Charles Mawley, and S. Tress
...first process was returnable, and, therefore, the statute does not apply to this case. In Holmes v. White, cited in Prigmore v. Bradley (6 East, 314), the Master reported that a non-pros, could never be signed, unless bail were filed in the term in which the writ was returnable. 840 DUNCAN ......