Simpson v Merrill et Al
| 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. 635
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
[53] simpson versus merrill & al'. Mich. 4 Jac. II. B. R. Rot. 370. 2 Lut. 1369, S. C. Judgment in an Inferior Court pleaded by taliter processum fuit, good. Comb. 124, S. C. 1 Show. 47, S. C. 3 Danv. 304. L. pi. 1. Trespass for breaking his house and taking away his goods; there was judgment against some of the defendants by default, and the other justified, for that the hundred of D. &c. is an antient hundred, and that a Court from three weeks to three weeks, time out of mind, had been held within this hundred, and that before the trespass, &c. King Charles the Second was seised of this hundred in fee in jure Corona}, &c. and long before the time, &c. made a lease thereof by letters patent to Katherine, now Queen Dowager, for life ; and that before the trespass, (viz.) on such a day, and at such a Court the plaintiff entered a plaint there against T. S. (one of the defendants) in trespass upon the case, upon which plaint, * taliter processum fuit in eadem Curia secundum consuetudinem Curies quod postea scilicet ad Curiam, on such a day, secundum cons. &c. consideratum fuit per eaudem Curiam quod predict. T. S. recuperet against the now plaintiff 9s. 4d. pro mis. & custagiis suis, quia the plaintiff non prosecutus fuit querelam suam prEedictam super quo judicio prseceptum emanat. fuit sub sigillo Roberti Domini Ferrars Seneschalli Curiaj predict, sigillat. secundum cons, eidem Merrill Ballivo & ministro CuriiB, &c. direct, per quod mandatum fuit, &c. quod levari faceret the aforesaid 9s. 4d. on tho goods of the plaintiff, whereupon he, on the day and year in the declaration mentioned, entered into the house of the plaintiff, the doors being open, &c. and within the jurisdiction of the Court, and took the goods to the value of 9s, 4d. and afterwards at another Court, &c. he returned his precept served, and the other defendant came in aid, &c. And upon a demurrer to this plea it was objected against it, that such a general pleading of a judgment in an Inferior Court, and not of record, by way of taliter processum fuit, is not good, but that the defendant ought to set forth all the proceedings in certain, for the pleading [54] by (A) a taliter processum fuit, is only allowable where judgment is obtained in a Superior Court at Westminster, or at least in an Inferior Court of Record, and not an Inferior Court not of (B) Record, for the Court of B. R. hath...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pitt v Knight
...v. Wilson. 2 Wils. 5, Adams v. Freeman. 2 Lutw. 1410, 1414, Walker v. Freeby. 2 Mod. 102, Law v. Robinson. Ibid. 195, Higginson v. Martin. Carth. 53, Simpson v. Merrill, the record whereof is in 2 Lutw. 1369. When it is necessary to shew that the process was returned, the distinction is bet......