Rottenhoffer v Lenthall the Marshall
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1741 |
| Date | 01 January 1741 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 90 E.R. 683
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
[136] rottenhoffer versus lenthall the Marshall. Pas. 2 Will. & M. B. R. Rot. 355. Plea in abatement, not good. Mich. 5 W. the like judgment between Greenvil v. Dighton, upon the like plea. Skin. 388. Comb. 229. 1 Show. 146, S. C. 2 Danv. 499, p. 9. See Dyer 32 a. 3 Cro. 537. 1 Mod. Rep. 121. Sid. 236. 2 Keb. 653, 659, 753. 1 Lev. 153. Raym. 100. 1 Keb. 827. 2 Vent. 261. Antea 1. An action of debt upon escape brought against the marshal!, in which the plaintiff had a verdict and judgment; and in an action of debt brought upon that judgment, the defendant pleaded, that he brought a writ of error on the same adhuc dependen. & indiscuss. and concluded in abatement, (viz.) si respondere compelli debeat, &c. And upon a general demurrer to this plea, it was adjudged ill; so the defendant was ruled to answer over. * Akwayes v. Roberts, 1 Sid. 188. 1 Lev. 38. 1 Keb. 85, 171, 646, 711. t 20 H. 3, cap. 1, 8 & 9 W. 3.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v Wybourn
...1 Saund. 37. 2 Saund. 66, 120, 125. 1 Sid. 305. Hutt. 109. Cro. Car. 163, 513, 535. 5 Mod. 426. 2 Mod. 71, &c. Fid. 1 Lev. 149, 143, S. C. Carth. 136. 1 Show. 98. Defendant's being beyond sea does not avoid the Statute of Limitations. Comber. 190. 2 Mod. 311. Note; The law is not altered by......
-
Coventry v Apsley
...1 Saund. 37. 2 Saund. 66, 120, 125. 1 Sid. 305. Hutt. 109. Cro. Car. 163, 513, 535. 5 Mod. 426. 2 Mod. 71, &c. Fid. 1 Lev. 149, 143, S. C. Carth. 136. 1 Show. 98. Defendant's being beyond sea does not avoid the Statute of Limitations. Comber. 190. 2 Mod. 311. Note; The law is not altered by......
-
Hall against Wyborn
...plaintiff cannot reply that the defendant was beyond the seas; for the proviso in 21 Jac. 1, c. 16, does not extend to defendants.-S. C. Carth. 136. S. C. 3 Mod. 311. S. C. Salk. 420. Case. The defendant pleads the Statute of Limitations, 21 Jac. 1, c. 16. The plaintiff replies, that the de......