Stevens v Evans et Al'
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 April 1761 |
| Date | 21 April 1761 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 97 E.R. 761
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 1 Black. 284, and see 6 Durn. 580.
Referred to, Danby v. Watson, 1877, 46 L. J. M. C. 181.
stevens versus evans et al'. Tuesday, 21st April, 1761. [S. C. 1 Black. 284, and see 6 Burn. 580.] Administrator not liable to pay poor's rate, for the intestate, at least not distrainable without summons. [Referred to, Danby v. Watsm, 1877, 46 L. J. M. C. 181.] This was an action of trover, for cattle : in which, a special ease was agreed upon, for the Court's opinion. The special case states, that on the 12th of April 1759, an assessment was made and allowed at a vestry of the inhabitants of the parish of Wix in Essex, to re-imburse to Steven Durant, the overseer, the monies laid out in the half year ended on Easter Monday then next ensuing the date, for the necessary relief of the poor of the said parish of Wix, by the said Stephen Duraut, the overseer, &c. Which assessment was in due manner allowed and confirmed by two justices of the peace, &e. and published in the church, Ac. That William Vesey was therein assessed 91. 11s. That afterwards, viz. on the 18th July 1759, William Vesey died intestate. That on 12th December 1759, administration of his goods, &c. was granted to John Stevens, the plaintiff; who possessed himself of his personal estate, and particularly of the cattle in the declaration mentioned. That on the 14th of January 1760, two justices of peace executed a warrant; in which warrant, the said rate or assessment is recited; and the warrant also recites that whereas it appeared on the oath of Stephen Durant the late overseer, " that the said 91. 1 Is. had been lawfully demanded of the said William Vesey deceased and of his widow and representative Susannah Vesey, since his decease, who hath refused and doth refuse to pay the same : " it requires the churchwardens, overseers, and constables, &c. to make a distress of the goods and chattels of the late William Vesey; and if within six days next after such distress, the said sum of 91. 11s. and also reasonable charges of the distress, [rendering the overplus to her the said Susannah Vesey,] be not paid on demand, then to sell, &c. And if no distress be to be had, then to certify the same; so that such further proceeding may be had therein, as to the law doth appertain. By virtue of this warrant, the defendant Goby (then constable) and the other defendant Durant (the late overseer) at Wix aforesaid, on the 19th of January 1760, dis-[1153]-trained the cattle, and sold them for 151. Which cattle so distrained, were the cattle of the said William Vesey in his life-time and at his death, and were distrained on the lands in the said parish of Wix occupied by the said William Vesey in his life-time. That the overplus, after payment of the rate, was tendered back. That notice of the action was given to the justices. The question upon this case, is whether the distraining and taking and selling the cattle which were the goods of William Vesey, in the hands of the plaintiff, his administrator, by virtue of the said warrant, was lawful or not. This case stood now in the paper, for argument. Mr. Norton, on behalf of the plaintiff, argued that it was not lawful: and an action of trover is maintainable against the parish officers for taking them. 1st objection, It is a bad rate, and illegal. 762 STEVENS V. EVANS 8 BURR. 1154. First-It is a rate made to re-imburse an overseer: which is a bad rate, as was settled in Tammy's case, 2 Ld. Raym. 1009, and 6 Mod. 97, Drnnim Regina v. Paroch' de Littleporl, S. C. and 2 Salk. 531, S. C. Tawney's case. For the overseer was not obliged to advance the money without a previous...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pullen and Others v Dublin City Council and Human Rights Commission
...the general rule is 'that no remedy can be taken, but the particular remedy prescribed by the statute' [citing Stevens v. Evans [1976] 2 Burr. 1152]." 65 What the legislature appears to have done in the present case is to have created a private law right to an action for damages where an or......
-
Byrne v Dublin City Council
... ... The rule as stated by Farwell J. in Stevens v. Chown is that "there was nothing to prevent the Court of Chancery from granting an injunction to restrain the infringement of a newly created ... Evans (1761) 2 Burr. 1152 a t p. 1157]. "Where an Act creates an obligation," said the court in Doe d. Bishop of Rochester v. Bridges, "and enforces ... ...
-
Potts v Hickman
...a mandamus, apparently on the ground that the Statute of Elizabeth did not specify a summons as necessary. But in 1761, Wilmot J. in Stevens v. Evans, 2 Burr. 1152, emphasised the established rule of the common law by observing at p. 1159 that "it would be strange that a distress "should b......
-
Bole v Smith
...104. Patrington v. Attorney-GeneralELR L. R. 4 H. L. 100, 122. Rex v. Croke Cowp. 26. Shepherd v. HillsENR 11 Ex. 55. Stevens v. EvansENR 2 Burr. 1152. Stevens v. Jeacocke 11 Q. B. 731, 741. Stockton Railway Company v. BarrettENR 11 Cl. & Fin. 590. The Queen v. County Court Judge of EssexEL......