Smith v Johnson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 145 E.R. 574
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
REPORTS of CASES in the COURT of EXCHEQUER, from the beginning of the Reign of KING GEORGE the FIRST, until the Fourteenth Year of the Reign of KING GEORGE the SECOND. By WELLIAM BUNBURY, Esq., late of the Inner Temple. Taken in Court by himself, and Published from his own Manuscript by his Son in Law, GEORGE WILSON, Serjeant at Law. The Second Edition, Revised and Corrected. 1793. [1] at serjeants inn, december 10, 1713. I. smith v. johnson. Tithe herbage or for agistment. Heard. 35, 184. If a man depastures unprofitable cattle in his ground, he ahull pay tithes in proportion to the number of the cattle and the value of the laud, generally at the rate of two shillings in the pound; and the same proportion is to be observed, if they are travelling cattle that come and go successively...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dillon v Parker
...Ves. Sen. 121), Bigland v. Huddleston (3 Bro. C. C. 285), Finch v. Finch (1 Ves. Jun. 534), Macnamara v. Jones (1 Bro. C. 0. 481), Blake v. Bunbury (1 Ves. Jun. 514), Wilson v. Lord John Townsend (2 Ves. Jun. 693), Broome v. Monck (10 Ves. 597), Thellusson v. Woodford (13 Ves. 209), a case ......
-
Kellett v Kellett
...Where there is a 1871. reasonable doubt as to the meaning of the testator's codicil, the KELLErr will prevails against it : Bunbury v. Bunbury (1). . On the question of interest, as affected by the Statute of Lim-i- v tations, in connexion with express trusts, and by the Plaintiff's laches ......
-
Maclaren v Stainton
...Even in cases of real estate abroad ; Jieckfard v. Kemlle (1 Sim. & St. 7); Beaitdiamp v. The Marquis of Huntley (Jacob, 546); Bunbury v. Bunbury (1 Beav. 318). Secondly. It is not the practice, upon an application to stay proceedings at law after a decree, to inquire where it will be most ......
-
M'Mahon v Leonard, Whiteside and Another
...c. 15. Doe d. Bishop of Rochester v. Bridges (g), Stevens v. Jeacocke (h), Underhill v. Ellicombe (i), Marshall v. Nicholls (k), Crisp v. Bunbury (1), were referred to. As to the eighth exception, viz., that the CHIEF JUSTICE should (a) 2 Salk. 428. (b) 3 Wils. 355. (c) Cro. Eliz. 187. (d) ......
-
Unconscious bias and the medical model: How the social model may hold the key to transformative thinking about disability discrimination
...Westminster Law School, London, UKCorresponding author:Stephen Bunbury, 4-16 Little Titchfield Street, London TW7 7BY, UK.Email: S.Bunbury1@westminster.ac.ukInternational JournalofDiscrimination and theLaw2019, Vol. 19(1) 26–47ªThe Author(s) 2019Article reuse guidelines:sagepub.com/journals......