R v Albert
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 April 1716 |
| Date | 18 April 1716 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 145 E.R. 575
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
[4] de term. paschve, 1710. 4. rbx v. albert. April 18, 1716. The security is to pay neither costs nor interest on a recognisance forfeited, which was given upon a plea to an extent. An extent issued against Albert, Knight, puts in his claim to the goods seised, and pleads to the extent, Hook and Scanderet were security to the pleader according to the course of the court; Knight afterwards withdrew his plea, upon which an order was made for the payment of the money, which accordingly was paid: Mr. Attorney General moved, that the security should pay costs and interest from the time the recognisance was forfeited ; but Mr. Turner and Mr. Ward objected, that they having paid the sum mentioned in the recognisance, and the condition being only to abide such order as the court shall make, and the order that was made by the court being only for the principal sum, neither the principal nor the security ought to be any further charged ; though where a man is bound in a bond to the Crown, there interest shall be allowed in respect of the penalty of the bond, but this recognisance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dillon v Parker
...v. Huddleston (A Bro. C. C. 285, n.). Finch v. Finch (4 Bro. C. C. 38 ; 1 Ves. Jim. 534). Macnamara v. Jones (1 Bro. C. 0. 481). Blake v. Bunbury (4 Bro. 0. 0.21; 1 Ves. Jun. 514). Wilson v. Lord John Townshend (2 Ves. Jun. 693). Broome v. Monck (10 Ves. 009). Thelluson v. Woodford (13 Ves.......
-
Blake against Bunbury
...the face of the will by declaration plain, or by necessary conclusion from the circumstances disclosed by the will; for no 760 BLAKE V. BUNBURY 4 BED. C. 0. 25. man is to be deprived of his property by guessing or conjecture. On the [25] other hand, the Court is not to refuse attention to w......
-
The said James Clark, - Appellant; Sree Mutty Doorgamoney Dossee, Executrix; and Prawnkissen Mullick, and Sreekissen Mullick, Executors of Baboo Rouplaul Mullick, deceased, - Respondents
...v. Lord Braybrooke (2 Starkie, N.P.R. 7; 6 M. and S. 39), Appleton v. Lord Braybrooke (2 Starkie, N.P.R. 6; 6 M. and S. 34), Alvers v. Bunbury (4 Camp. N.P.R. 28): and where the record upon which a foreign judgment has been obtained is put in proof, the Courts here will go so far as to exam......
-
Story v Lord Windsor and Others
...430. Newman v. Newman, 1 Bro. Cha. Rep. 186. Macnamara v. Jones, 1 Bro. Cha. Rep. 481. Frank v. Standish, 1 Bro. Cha. Rep. 588. Blake v. Bunbury, 4 Bro. Cha. Rep. 21. Finch v. Finch, 4 Bro. Cha. Rep. 38. Vide etiam Hearle v. Greenbanke, post, 3 vol. 715. Forrester v. Cotton, Amb. 388. Cull ......
-
Unconscious bias and the medical model: How the social model may hold the key to transformative thinking about disability discrimination
...adjustments, social model, social exclusionUniversity of Westminster, Westminster Law School, London, UKCorresponding author:Stephen Bunbury, 4-16 Little Titchfield Street, London TW7 7BY, UK.Email: S.Bunbury1@westminster.ac.ukInternational JournalofDiscrimination and theLaw2019, Vol. 19(1)......
-
Tarporley and Weverham Road (Cheshire) Act 1823
...called Lord Viscount Belgrave, the Right Honourable George Harry. Grey commonly called Lord. Gray,, Sir Edmund Antrobus Baronet, Sir Henry Bunbury 4*:GEQRM: IV. C^taxii: Kgft Embury. Baronet, Sir Richard BrookeBarpnet, Sir John, Broughttqn Baronet, Sir John Chetwode Baronet, Sir John Grey j......