Terry v Huntington et Al
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1655 |
| Date | 01 January 1655 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 145 E.R. 557
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER
(2) terliy versus HuNT[N rroN & al'. In can action of trover and conversion for goods, levied by warrant of the commissioners of excise, the question was, if they adjudge low wines to be strong wines perfectly made, upon the statute of 12 Car. 2, c. 2;), whether it may be drawn in question again by an action in this court, so as to make the officer chargeable ; which in effect was the same point with the case immediately foregoing. Ayloff pro quer. He argued much to the same purpose, that the council for the. plaintiff had argued in the former case : that they had but a limited jurisdiction ; which if they exceeded, their acts were void ; arid their other officers liable. And he cited the case of callicoe, which the farnies of the customs had adjudged to be linen, and yet the contrary had been adjudged here. And two courts niay have jurisdiction in a cause diverso respectu : if right of tithes come in question, the spiritual court had a jurisdiction ; if a discharge [481] of tithes, the common law has; vide Mo. Rep. 4, 2, Ounlinal Pool's e.axe, & vide Cro. Car. 1595, the case of a justice of peace ; where an officer was held liable to ati action for taking a distress pursuant to his warrant, in ease of a cess rated upon one that was not liable ; vide Dyer, 135. But the main doubt here is, because the statute gives an appeal; whence they would infer, that the party has no other remedy. To which I answer, that the words [and not otherwise] relate only to the proximum antecedens ; and the meaning of them is, that the commissioners of appeal shall proceed only in cases of appeal, and not originally. And tho' tbe act be restrictive with respect to the commissioners and justices of peace, who have a stinted authority; yet it was not the intention of the makers of the act, to exclude the jurisdiction of the common law. And the act of 12 Car. 2, dap. 24, which gives the hereditary excise, concerns other matters, that are not detenninable before the commissioners of excise ; as purveyance, &c. Vide Cro. Eliz. 38 Eliz. placito 7, Dyer, 236. And the act gives leave to plead the general issue ; which implies, that the matter is examinable elsewhere. Winnington, pro defendente : The officers in this case are excused, because the liquor is an excisable liquor: otherwise, if the liquor were not excisable. 558 TERRY 1'. HUNTINGTON HARDEE3.482. First, an action lies not against the commissioners ; because they are judges, and by consequence not against their officers neither. For...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Houlden v Smith
...Basten v. Carew (3 B. & C. 649, 657), as overruled by Doswell v. Impey (1 B. & C. 163). [850] Watson, in reply, cited Terry v. Huntington (Hardres, 480), and Wingate v. Waite (6 M. & W. 739), and contended that the matter in question waa wholly without the jurisdiction of the defendant, ina......
-
Houlden v Smith
...1 Q. B. 3. (h) 14 M. & W. 57, 70, 71. (i) 3 Camp. 388. ( j) 2 Str 993. (k) 2 W. Bl. 1141. (1) 3 B. & C. 649, 657. (no 1 B. & C. 163. (n) Hardres, 480. (o) 6 M. & W. 739. (p) See K inning”s case, 10 Q. B. 730; pane K,naing, 4 C. B. 507 ; and Bowdler”e case, 12 Q. B. 612 (all on S & 9 Vict. c......
-
Luttin against Benin
...Ghetimjn v. Winner,' 1 Sid. 183, and Marquis of Dorchester's case, 2 Mod. 215. (a) Nichols v. Walker, Cro. Car. 394. Papillon v. Biukner, Hard. 480. (b) Adney v. Vernon, 3 Lev. 243. Dye v. Olive, March, 117. (c) Mico v. Morris, 3 Lev. 234. Richardson v. Barnard, 1 Roll. Abr. 809. (d) Hob. 2......
-
Rex v Bernstein Bryer and Bryer
...of furniture let "in connection with the dwelling". Its order is therefore ipso jure null and void. Voet (5. 1. 65); Terry v Huntington (145 E.R. 557). As to the rental for the furniture at 106, Zastron Street the maxim "de minimis non curat lex" is not applicable to questions of jurisdicti......