Roche port action sur le case v Patten de ceo que le dit Patten assume a payer
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1665 |
| Date | 01 January 1665 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 123 E.R. 516
DEL COMMON-BANK
[6] IV. Roche port action sur le case vera Patten da ceo que le dit Patten assume a payer all plantiff 100 li. le defendant plede que ill aver fait all plantiff un obligation pur mesme le 100 li. le plantiff replie & en ceo averr aon declaration absque hoc que dit defendant fist a luy le obligation &c. et hoc petit quod inquiratur per patriam & le defendant similiter. un jure fuit prise & trove que ne fiat le dit obligacion pur le dit LOO li. et sur ceo judgment fuit done en le Escheker. Et sur ceo breve de error fuit port accordant all course, &c. et ceo fuit allege pur error et per Popham & Anderson fuit tenns error & nient remedy per leatatute : & lour reson fuit que null iaaue fuit joine: car issue ne poit eatre joyne aana affirmatyve et negative, d'ont le un doit eatre directment contrary a le auter; come en treapaa pur batery, close debruse, & simil. un plede nan culp. &c. et de hoc ponit, &c. ceo est issue tende car le declaration est 2 ANDERSON, 7. 517 affirmative en qua eat contenus qua ill luy aver battue &c. a quo le pie de non eulp. eat direct negative & issiut eat en action reals: come en fortnedon, ne dona, & simil. ceux issues aont d' estre prices sur matter dell declarations, & come est sur declarations semble serra sur plees quant issue serra prises suit matter en eux conteans sans absque hoc : come si un plede Beleas ou sirail. a que le contrary parte plede nient son fait & de hoc ponit aut petit &c. come le case require : ceux sont matter de issue : issint qua le plaintiff ou tenant ou defendant (come le case require) joine a ceo par ceux parcels scil. & le plaintiff sirailiter & issint est dell defendant quant ill doit joiner, et si cost joyuer ne soit nest issue: car tanque tout ceo soit fait le plaintiff & defendant ne ont join...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NAP Holdings UK Ltd v Whittles (HM Inspector of Taxes)
...material time represented by paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 13 to the Finance Act 1965 and sections 78 and 85 of the CGTA 1979 by paragraphs 4( 2) and 6(1) of Schedule 7 to that Act. The position was that the taxpaying company, to which its holding company ("Holdings") had via a share exchange ......
-
Selby v Director of Public Prosecutions (on Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))
..."put off", none of which is defined in the Act, to describe dealings or intended dealings with coins. All three occur in subsections (1), ( 2) and (6) but only the two latter in subsection (3). The offences dealt with by these subsections became statutory offences at different dates—those c......
-
Fleming (Inspector of Taxes) v Associated Newspapers Ltd
...to gain any help from them and I did not understand that counsel on either side relied on them so I say no more about them. 6 Subsections ( 2) and (6) preserve, subject to immaterial qualifications, the right to deduct the expense of entertaining overseas customers. Perhaps this was thought......
-
DPP v Moloney
...49( 2) or (3) of that Act, I was not entitled to convict the Respondent of the offence before the Court, being an offence under Section 50( 2) and 6(a) of the said Act." 14 No issue is raised in the case stated as to the lawfulness of the arrest or of the procedures conducted pursuant to th......