Shaw v The Marquis of Worcester
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 February 1830 |
| Date | 03 February 1830 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 1328
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 4 Moo. & P. 21; 8 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 98.
[385] shaw . the maequis of worcester. Feb. 3, 1830. [S. C. 4 Moo. & P. 21; 8 L. J. C. P. (0. S.) 98.] Breaches need not be assigned under 8 & 9 W. 3, c. 11, on non-payment of an annuity secured by a warrant to confess judgment on a mutuatus. The Plaintiff had signed judgment and issued execution for the arrears of an annuity, under a warrant of attorney, by which, after reciting the grant of an annuity of 2511. the covenant by the Defendant to pay it, and a stipulation that judgment should be entered up under the warrant of attorney as a security for the payment, the Defendant "authorized and empowered the Plaintiff'* attornies, or either of them, or any other attorney of the Court of Common Pleas, to appear in the said Court for him the said, Henry Marquis of Worcester, in or as of last Trinity term, next Michaelmas term, of any subsequent terra, and then and there to receive a declaration for him in action of debt upon a mutuatus against him for the sum or 34001. at the suit of the 6BIHO,386. SHAW V. THE MARQUIS OF WORCESTER 1329 eaid Benjamin Shaw, his executors or administrators, and thereupon to confess the said action, or else to suffer a judgment by nil dicit or otherwise to pass against the said Henry Marquis of Worcester in the said action, and to be forthwith entered up against him of record of the same Court for the said sum of 34001., together with costs of suit. And the said Henry Marquis of Worcester did thereby further authorize and empower the said attornies, or any one of them, after the said judgment should have been so entered up as aforesaid in the name of him the said Henry Marquis of Worcester, and as his act and deed, to execute one or more effectual release or releasas in the law to the said Benjamin Shaw, his heirs, executors, and administrators, of all errors, writs of error, and of all benefit and advantage thereof, and of all defects and imperfections whatsoever to be committed, occasioned, or suffered in, about, or concerning the [386] said judgment, or in, about, or concerning any writ, warrant, proeess, declaration, plea, entry, or other proceeding whatsoever in anywise concerning the said judgment; and for whatsoever the said attornies, or any of them, should do or cause to be done in the premises, that should be to them and every of them a sufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gainsford v Griffith
...[or to secure the payment of an annuity], is not within the statute; 3 Taunt. 74, Cox v. Rodbard. 5 Taunt. 264, Kinnersley v. Mussen. [6 Bing. 385, Shaw v. Lord, Worcester. 4 M. & P. 21, S. C. 5 B. & Ad. 41, per Littledale J.]; although a bond be also given. 2 Taunt. 195, Austerbury v. Morg......
-
Stratton v Codd
...n. The Kingstown Railway Company 3 Law Rec. N. S. 24. Green v. Shiel J. & B. 214, n. The Marquis of WorcesterUNKENR 4 M. & P. 21 ; S. C. 6 Bing. 385. Kennedy v. Stubbs 3 Law Rec. O. S. 312. Ausrerbury v. MorganENR 2 Taunt. 195. Tilby v. BestENR 16 East, 163. Leveridge v. Forty 1 M. & Sel. 7......
-
Ryan v Massy
...v. Beatty 2 Jones, 471. Austerbury v. MorganENR 2 Taunt. 195. Kinnersley v. MussenENR 5 Taunt. 264. Shaw v. The Marquis of WorcesterENR 6 Bing. 385. Walcot v. GouldingENR 8 T. R. 126. Roles v. RosewellENR 5 T. R. 538. Hardy v. Bern Ibid, 540. Collins v. CollinsENR 2 Burr. 820. Gorman v. Hin......