Robins v Robins

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Year1795
Date1795
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 15

COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER.

Robins
and
Robins

11 Will. 3, B. R. Intratur Trin. 10 Will. 3, Rot. 162. 1 Ld. Raym. 503, S. C.

6. robins versus robins. [11 Will. 3, B. R. Intratur Trin. 10 Will. 3, Rot. 162. 1 Ld. Raym. 503, S. C.] Vide record, page 728. Case for malicious holding to bail; declaration ought to set forth the sum due, and the process specially, and that the first action is determined. 2 Wilson 376. 6 Mod. 262. Hob. 267. Yelv. 117. iStra. 114. 2 Salk. 456. 5 Mod. 223, 224. 1 Lev. 169. Cases B. R. 273, S. C. Case, for that the defendant colore cujusdam medii process, in lege caused him to be arrested, and though he offered a common appearance held him to bail, where by law no bail was required ; and verdict pro quer. on nan culp. Et per Holt C.J. This is a tender action. You must shew that the plaintiff being indebted to the defendant in so much, the defendant took out such a writ for so much more, on purpose to hold him to bail: how else can it appear to us whether and how far he might be held to bail in that action 1 And as to what Carthew said, that the writ was seldom returned, and they could not have it to give in evidence, and therefore it would be inconvenient to set it out specially in the declaration ; the Chief Justice answered, he might have a rule on the officer to return his writ. Vide 1 Saund. 228. And this action lies not till the original action is determined (a). (a) R, ac. Comyns' Reports 190. Doug. 215. 2 Term Reports 225. Fide "2 Wils. 305. 3 Term Reports 183.

English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 16

COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER.

Iveson
and
Moore

Trin. 11 Will. 3, B. R. Intratur Hill. 9 Will. 3, Rot. 437. Comyns 58, S. C. 1 Ld. Raym. 486, S. C.

See S. C. 1 Ld. Raym. 486 (with note).

16 ACTION 9UR LE CASE 1 BA1KBLD. 16. 7. iveson versus moore. [Trin. 11 Will. 3, B. E. Intratur Hill. 9 Will. 3, Eot. 437. Comyns 58, S. C. 1 Ld. Rayra. 486, S. C.] [See S. C. 1 Ld. Eaym. 486 (with note).] Fide record, page 730. Case for stopping up a highway leading to the plaintiffs colliery with intent to deprive him of the profit thereof, per quod he lost the profit, &c. and hia coals were spoiled for want of buyers. Court divided whether action lies or not. Garth. 451. Mod. Cases, &c. 353. Comb. 480, S. C. Holt 10. Case, and declared that he was possessed of a colliery, and that there waa a highway near, by which he used to carry...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Skinner v Gunton, Lyon, and Leason
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 1 January 1845
    ...2 Vin. Abr. 35, MSS. Blackgrave v. Oden. Doug. 205, Fisfier v. Bristow. 2 T. R. 225, Morgan v. Hughes. Willes' Rep. 517, Hunter v. French. 1 Salk. 15, Robins v. Robins.(a) (a) [So in an action on the case for maliciously laying an information before a justice of the peace, the plaintiff mus......
  • Chamberlain v West End of London Railway
    • United Kingdom
    • Exchequer Division
    • 2 February 1863
    ...the present, in which the peculiar injury is put as only accruing to a single individual." In Iveson v. Moor (I Ld. Raym. 486 ; Garth. 451; 1 Salk. 15 ; 12 Mod. 262 ; Com. 58), which was an action for obstructing a highway, and so preventing access to a colliery "prope adjacens" to the high......
  • Sir Richard Dobson, Knt., and John Sutton against Blackmore
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the Queen's Bench
    • 1 January 1847
    ...Alston v. Scales (9 Bing. 3). (a) April 23d. Before Lord Denman, C.J., Patteson, Williams, and Wightman Js. (d) 1 Ld. Eaym. 486; S. C. 1 Salk. 15; Holt, 10; Garth. 451; 12 Mod. 262; 1 Com. Rep. 58; Comb. 480 ; note (a) to Chichester v. Lethbridge, Willes, 74. 1558 DOBSON V. BLACKMORE 9 Q. B......
  • Chamberlain against The West End of London and Crystal Palace Railway Company. [in the COURT of QUEEN'S BENCH, and THE COURT of EXCHEQUER CHAMBER]
    • United Kingdom
    • Exchequer
    • 2 May 1862
    ...affected, and compensation may be awarded. [M6] Ctompton J. The reason of the judgment in Ivesm v. Moore (1 Ld. fiayn). 486:; Cartb. 451; 1 Salk. 15 ; 12 Mod. 262; Com. 58X given from a raanuscripf; note of Willet C.J. in a note to Chichester v. Lethbridye (Willes, 71, 74, note (a)), and wb......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT