Storr and Another against Bowles

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date05 November 1832
Date05 November 1832
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 397

IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH

Storr and Another against Bowles

[112] storr and another against bowles. Monday, Nov. 5th, 1832. The Act for uniformity of process, 2 W. 4, e. 39, s. 1, does not prevent the signing of a pluries bill of Middlesex in a suit commenced before the Act came into operation. S. Hughes moved that the signer of Middlesex writs might be ordered by the Court to sign a pluries bill of Middlesex in the above cause, which that officer had -declined to do, considering himself precluded from it by the Act for uniformity of process, 2 W. 4, c. 39. In sect. 1 of the Act (which came into operation the first day of this term), after reciting that the process for the commencement of personal actions in the Superior Courts is inconvenient, it is enacted, " That the process in all such actions commenced in either of the said Courts," where it is not intended to -hold to bail, shall be in the form after stated, namely, by writ of summons. But the writ of summons, by its form, applies only to the original commencement of an action, which in this case would have been too late to save the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Elizabeth Davies, Plaintiff, William Selby Lowndes, Defendant, in Error
    • United Kingdom
    • Exchequer
    • 24 January 1843
    ...2 Scott, 806, 813); Foot v. Collins (1 Mylne & Cr. 250); Leigh, Dem. Leigh, Ten. (2 Scott, 666, 668, 2 N. Cases, 464), Starr v. Bowles (4 B. & Ad. 112, 1 Dowl. P. C. 516); Finnie v. Montagu (5 B. & Ad. 877, 2 N. & M. 804). For the demandant, the authorities relied on were, Statutes Westm. 2......
  • Doe dem. T. Standish and W. Blackburn against Roe
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 1 January 1833
    ...Eoe (1 Chitty's Rep. 195); and this rule has been held to apply to a case (a)1 This Court had given a like direction in Storr v. Bowles, 4 B. & Ad. 112. (of Before Denman C.J., Littledale, Parke, and Patteson Js. 5 B. & AD. 880. TA RDE E W V. BROOK 1017 where the first ejectment was brought......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT