Read v Cooper
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 July 1813 |
| Date | 05 July 1813 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 128 E.R. 620
Common Pleas Division
Referred to, In re Gregg, 1869 L. R. 9 Eq. 144.
620 READD COOPER 5 TAUNT. 89. the other three. In this term Best Serjt. had obtained a rule nisi for judgment as in case of a nonsuit for not proceeding to trial pursuant to notice, against which Shepherd Serjt. now showed cause upon the facts above stated. Beet, in support of his rule, urged that the reasons were insufficient; or at all events the Court would discharge the rule only on payment of the costs of the day. GIBBS J. I think it is a good cause of withdrawing the record ; a man who has a very good cause of action, may sometimes be well advised in withdrawing a record. Rule unconditionally discharged. [89] READ v. COOPER. July 5, 1813. [Referred to, In re Gregg, 1869, L. R. 9 Eq. 144.] If the agent, in town is the attorney on the record, it is no objection to an affidavit of the party, that it is sworn before his own attorney in the country.Assignments in bankruptcy ought to be admitted. Best Serjt. showed for cause against a rule to set aside a judgment as in case of a nonsuit for not proceeding to trial, that the affidavits of the Defendant, upon which Rough Serjt. had obtained it, were sworn before the Defendant's own attorney in the country. Rough. The attorney before whom they were sworn, is not the person who has the warrant of attorney to defend, and who is the attorney on the record. GIBBS J. If he is not the attorney on the record, it will not vitiate : besides the Plaintiff's affidavit only states hearsay for the foundation of this objection. Best then went to the merits, and the Court discharged the rule, imposing the terms of admitting the assignments in bankruptcy. GIBBS J. We were so strongly impressed in the King's Bench with the propriety of admitting those, that the counsel came to an agreement never to hesitate to admit an assignment, unless a particular reason could be stated for it. Rule absolute, upon the terms of admitting the assignment. 190] MOORE v. CLARK. July 5, 1813. [Dictum questioned, Makin v. Watk,inson, 1870, L. R. 6 Ex. 27.] If the Plaintiff declares on a general covenant to repair a messuage, and assigns a breach, per quod he was put to expence, it is sufficient for a tenant to plead performance as to all except as to the repairs of a party-wall, and that those repairs were rendered necessary, and were done under the statute 14...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Regulae Generales
...8 T. R. 638; Barnes, 45; nor, in the Common Pleas, to affidavits sworn before the actual attorney, if not the attorney upon the record. 5 Taunt. 89; 3 B. Moore, 355. By this rule the real intention of the general practice will be effectuated ; and, by the practice of the Exchequer, affidavi......
-
MacNamara v Vincent
...1 Salk. 141; S. C. 2 Ld. Raym. 1125. Luxmore v. RobsonENR 1 B. & Ald. 584. Kingdon v. NottleENR 4 M. & S. 53. Moore v. ClarkeENR 5 Taunt. 89. Shortridge v. LamplughENR 2 Ld. Raym. 798. Clow v. Brogden 2 Man. & Gr. 39, 53. Nixon v. Denkam 1 Jebb & S. 416; S. C. 1 Ir. Law Rep. 100. Walker v. ......
-
Foster v Harvey
...in reply. On this point, Be Hogan (3 Atk. 813); Wood v. Harpur (3 Beav. 290); GoodtUle d. Pye v. Badtitk (8 T. R. 638); Read v. Cooper (5 Taunt. 89); Williams v. Hockin (8 Taunt. 435); and Hopkin v. Hopkin (10 Hare, App. ii.), were referred to. the lord justice turner. The preliminary quest......