Roberts & Sa Feme v Herbert
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1714 |
| Date | 01 January 1714 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 82 E.R. 936
King's Bench Division
[5] terming michaelis anno 12 caroli secundi regis, in communi banco, annoque domini 1660. 1. roberts & sa feme versus herbert. Entr' Hill. 1658. Ro. 1149. in Com. Bane. Dett sur escape versus vicount. In dett sur escape vera vicount le plaintiff declare que J. S. & sa feme fueront in execution &c. Et que ils escape &c. Et sur nil debet plead special verdict fuit trove a cest effect (soil.) que le baron fuit in execution & q il escape, et ouster que le feme na fuit prist in execution (esteant pur dett contracted devant coverture) et sur argument al Barre lopinion del Court fuit que judgment aerra pur plaintiff. Et ceo nient obstant que le verdict ne fuit in tout pursuant al declaration & est semble al case de Hingen c& Paine, Cm. 2. 475. Lou in dett sur obligation que fuit sur condition le plaintiff assigne breach del condition en ceo que il fuit expulse de son mease per deux & le jury trove que un solement luy expulse &c. & bone. Issint King & Andrews case, Cro. 2. 380. In action sur le case pur escape dun B. le jury trove que B. fuit pris per J. le former vicount & nemy per le ore vicount defendant, mes deliver a luy & comenfc ceo ne fuit pursuant al declaration uncore intarit que ils trove que B. fuit in prison & escape, judgment fuit pur le plaintiff. Et quant en le principal case le plaintiff declare del imprisonment & escape dambideux, & le jury trove que le feme ne fuit pris ne escape ceo est taut sicome le feme na destre mention omnino, serable al case 2 El. Dy. 175. a. Lou en replevin v'sus deux ils sont a issue & apiert al Court que lun des defendants mor' puis le darrain continuance uucore ceo nient obstant le Court proceed & done judgment pro querente come vies en le livre ove plusors auters bone cases la a cest purpose. Nota, que Archer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paget against Wheate
...but corrected in 1 Roll. Abr. 850, pi. 11. Pope v. Skinner, Cam. Scaco. T. 12 Jac. 1, Hob. 72. ^^ Roberts v. Herbert, C. B. M. 12 Car. 2, 1 Sid. 5. Wyvill v. Shepherd, C. B. H. 29 Geo. 3, H. Bl. 162. Sarbe v. Parker, C. B. M. 30 Geo. 3, H. Bl. 284, which three last cases are instances of va......
-
Smith v Hixon
...2 2 STRANGE, 978. to the matter for which the plaintiff would recover, and the action would survive to her; and they cited Cro. El. 884. 1 Sid. 5. [978] Sed per Curiara, in Savil v. Roberts (a), Salk. 13, it was indeed held, that expence alone without scandal would not be a ground for such ......
-
Roberts v Harnage
...v. Wright, ubi sup. 2 SALKELD, 661, VARIANCE 563 Fide also Smith v. HicTcson, B. R. Hard. 54 ; Pope v. Skinner, Hob. 72; Roberts v. Hubert, 1 Sid. 5; Ime v. #a?/, Fort. 353; Hams v. Bernard, Str. 1069; Baynes v. , Str. 890; .fMr v. Sowerby, R. R. Hard. 131; Williams v. CtyZe, Str. 889. ...
-
The Bank of England v Catharine Morrice, Widow, Executrix of Humphrey Morrice, deceased
...may be concluded out of it to the point in issue, the Court shall work it into form and make it serve. And, for the same purpose, he cited 1 Sid. 5, 27, and Carter, 80 : that the Court will set verdicts right, which give greater damages than are declared for; and cites a precedent of that s......