Symes v Symes
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1759 |
| Date | 01 January 1759 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 97 E.R. 576
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
See 4 Burr. 2035. 3 East, 477. 5 East. 348.
symes versus symes. 1759. Prohibition does not lie after sentence. [See 4 Burr. 2035. 3 East, 477. 5 East, 348.] A motion for a prohibition to the Ecclesiastical Court, was denied by the whole Court; for that where the Ecclesiastical Court have jurisdiction (as in the present case they had,) and they have pronounced sentence, the remedy must be by appeal, and not by way of prohibition : but if they proceed where they have no jurisdiction at all; there a prohibition may be applied for, after sentence in the Eccleaiaatical Court.* They were clear that the present case was within the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Court: and they had already given sentence of excommunication. Therefore they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Veley and Another against Burder
...case (Hardr. 406), Guillan v. Gill (1 Lev. 164), Juxon v. Byron (2 Lev. 64), Anonymous (March, New Ca. 92, pi. 152), Symes v. Symes (2 Burr. 813), the judgments of Lord Kenyon C.J. and Buller J. in Leman v. Goulty (3 T. It. 3), Wilson v. M'Math (3 B. & Aid. 241. 3 Phill. Eec. Rep. 61), Bex ......
-
Gould against Gapper, Clerk
...Court has original jurisdiction of the cause (as here it (a) Cowp. 422. (5) 1 Stra. 187. (c) 10 Mod. 12. ' (d) Dougl. 378, octavo edit. () 2 Burr. 813. (/) 4 Burr. 2035. (g) Bunb. 17. 1104 GOULD V, GAPPER 5 EAST, 349, must be admitted to -have had), and nothing appears upon the face of the ......
-
Anonymous. [COURTS of KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS and EXCHEQUER]
...shall go, although sentence below has been pronounced. See Gardner v. Sooth, 1 Salk. 548. Rebowe v. Bickerton, Bunb. 81. Symes v. Symes, 2 Burr. 813. Smith v. Lmgley, B. R. H. 317. Dawson v. Wilkinson, B. R. H. 381. Shatter v. 11 MOD. 8. EASTER TERM, 1 QUEEN ANNE. IN B. R. 849 And note, alt......
-
Bellamy v Player
...345. Shatter v. Friend, Salk. 547. Com. Dig. Prohibition D. Sed vid. Ld. Camden v. Home, 4 Term Rep. 397, per Buller, J. Symes v. Symes, 2 Burr. 813. Ou prohibitions after sentence, see further, Viner, tit. Prohibition, L. a. M. a. EndiJce v. Steed, poxt, p. 294. (a) Vid. Hungate's case, 12......