Priscilla Web, Window, v Moore
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1726 |
| Date | 01 January 1726 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 86 E.R. 442
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
442 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 whereof was upon a quantum meruit, for finding meat and drink for the defendant at his request. The defendant pleaded in bar an outlawry of the plaintiff in this manner, (viz.) Quod quiclam S. C. al' scilicet termino SanctiB Trinitat' anno regni nuper Regis Jacobi Secundi tertio implacitavit prad Priscillam in Cur' dicti nuper Eegis de Banco hie de placito transgres. prajd' quia Priscilla pro eo q J non venit in pried' Cur1 de B. prsed. p'fa? S. C. hide responsur' secundum legem & consuetud' hujus regni Augl' in exigendo posita fuit ad utlag' in com' Wilts' & ea ratione postea scilicet quintodecimo die Maii anno regni dicti nuper Regis quarto iti com' Wilts' prted. debito juris modo ad aeetam praed. S. C. waviata fuit adhuc waviata existit put per recordum & pcessum inde in eadem Cur' dicti nup Regis de Banco prted' retornat & modo residens plan' liquet quae quidem utlagaria adhuc in suis robore & effectu remanet minime reversat' sen annihilat' & hoc parat' est verificare per recordum illud unde pet' judicium si actio, &e. And to thia plea the plaintiff demurred. 1. For the outlawry could not be pleaded in bar to an assumpsit upon a quantum meruit; for there is no certainty of debt appearing till the thing comes to be valued, and so cannot be forfeited. It was doubted, whether debt upon a simple contract was forfeited till 4 Co. Blade's case 1 But it was resolved by the Court in this case, that the outlawry was a good...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M'Dowell v Bergin
...Cro. Eliz. 850. Batty v. Fay Ir. Term. Rep. 511. Powis v. WilliamsENR 2 Lutw. 1604. Hage v. SkinnerENR 3 Lev. 29. Webb v. MooreENR 2 Vent. 282. The King v. Executors of Sir John DaccombeENR Cro. Jac. 512. The Earl of Somerset's caseENR Hob. 214. Wilkes' case Lane's Rep. 54. Pawlett v. Attor......
-
Green against Moore
...outlawed after the defendant imparls, he may plead the outlawry in disability without saying puis darrein continuance.-S. C. 1 Salk. 178. 2 Vent. 282. Lut. 1514. 1 Lutw. 39. N. Lutw. 15. 2 Lutw. 1512, 1514. Comb. 253, 357. 4 Bac. Abr. 144. 5 Term Eep. 224. The case was thus:-The declaration......
-
Alsop v Bagget
...6 & 7 GEO. II. 1733. [BARNES, 241, S. C.] Judgment set aside, being signed after a plea of outlawry in bar, not pleaded sub pede sigilli. 2 Vent. 282. THOMSON. A motion to set aside judgment, a plea having been delivered ; it was insisted upon by the plaintiff's counsel that the defendant h......
-
Panter v Coppin, Vid'
...6 & 7 GEO. II. 1733. [BARNES, 241, S. C.] Judgment set aside, being signed after a plea of outlawry in bar, not pleaded sub pede sigilli. 2 Vent. 282. THOMSON. A motion to set aside judgment, a plea having been delivered ; it was insisted upon by the plaintiff's counsel that the defendant h......