Sir John Poultney Plaintiff against Masse Defendant
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 80 E.R. 815
IN THE COURT OF KINGS BENCH
sir john poultney Plaintiff against masse Defendant. An action of trover and conversion for hay. In an action of trover and conversion, of certain hay, upon not guilty pleaded, the same was tried at the Bar by a jury of Middlesex, and upon the evidence the title appeared to be for hay, which was claimed, as in right of Coltney Chappel. Note, it was observed in this case, that the Poultneys were knights in the time of King Edward 3. and have so continued until this day in the same dignity, and this was thus observed for the antiquity of their name, and as to Coltney Chapel, Williams Justice, observed that the statute of 1 E. 6. cap. 14. made for giving of chanteries unto the King, the same is to be understood, that such chappels are thereby given to the King, which were then in esse, at the time of the making of the statute, or which were in ease, before the statute made, such as were in esse, in facto, at the time of the statute made, or which were in esse, in jure in right 5 years before the law made, and this he said to the counsel, they were for to prove, or else they proved nothing: the whole Court agreed with him herein, quod nota. Note, an exception was taken in arrest of judgment unto the declaration, in an action upon the case where the wrong was laid to be done, in divers places, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rainforest Trading Ltd v State Bank of India Singapore
...Ibrahim [1992] 2 MLJ 355 (refd) Susilawati v American Express Bank Ltd [2009] 2 SLR (R) 737; [2009] 2 SLR 737 (refd) Thorner v Field (1611) 1 Bulst 120; 80 ER 816 (refd) Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1 (refd) Wong Hon Leong David v Noorazman bin Adnan [1995......
-
Rainforest Trading Ltd and another v State Bank of India Singapore
...that the guarantee was unenforceable because consideration was past. The same result was arrived at on similar facts in Thorner v Field (1611) 1 Bulst 120; 80 ER 816. Similarly, in Eastwood v Kenyon, a promise made by a young woman’s husband to repay the loan previously taken out by the wom......
-
Thorner Plaintiff against Field Defendant
...E.R. 816" class="content__heading content__heading--depth1"> English Reports Citation: 80 E.R. 816 IN THE COURT OF KINGS BENCHThorner Plaintiff against Field Defendant thoener Plaintiff against field Defendant. An action upon the case for a promise, &c. In an action upon the case, grounded ......