The King against James Jetherell

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1757
Date01 January 1757
CourtExchequer

English Reports Citation: 145 E.R. 749

IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER

The King against James Jetherell

[177] hilary term, 30 geo. 2, 1757. the king against james jetherell.-The sheriff is intitled to poundage, by the statute 3 Geo. 1, where he takes inquisitions and makes seizures upon extents in aid, and the prosecutors receive the money for which the extents issued from the sheriff. The defendant Jetherell, being indebted to James Harkness, Esquire, receiver-geueral of the county of Cambridge, in the sum of 8591. an estent in aid issued against him for the same, on the 23d of January 1755, directed to the sheriff of the county of Huntingdon; and by virtue of an inquisition taken thereon, he took and seized several goods into His Majesty's hands, which were appraised at 20001. and upwards. The defendant Jetherell, being likewise indebted to Henry Southwell, Esquire, receiver-general of the county of Huntingdon, in the sum of 5001. another extent in aid iisued against him for the same, on the 27th of January aforesaid, directed to the said sheriff of the county of Huntingdon; and by virtue of another inquisition taken thereon, he took and seized the same goods, which were appraised at 20001. and upwards,, as aforesaid. [178] The seizures were made at different times, and in four different towns in the said:county; and after the proceedings before mentioned, the several sums of 8591. and 5001. were paid by the assignees under a commission of bankruptcy against the defendant Jetherell, to Mr. Thomas Johnson, under-sherifF of the said county of Huntingdon ; who paid over the said 8591. to the said James Harkness, and the said 5001. to .the said Henry Southwell. That Mr. Harkness and Mr. Southwell had not paid Mr. Johnson poundage, or his costs and charges in executing the extents, according to their agreements. Mr. Perrott therefore moved, the last term, that Mr. Harkness and Mr. Southwell might respectively pay Mr. Johnson poundage on the said extents, and his costs and charges relating thereto, and his costs of this application ; and that it might be referred to the deputy-remembrancer, to settle the same: which, upon reading the affidavits of the isaid Mr. Johnson, and the said extents, inquisitions and agreements, was accordingly ordered, unless cause, the first day of this term. Mr.!Starkie shewed cause, for Mr. Harkness and Mr. Southwell, against the order : and made several questions. 750 THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. HIKES PAEKEB, 179. ; First, whether the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Read, Appellant v Storey, Respondent
    • United Kingdom
    • Exchequer
    • January 12, 1861
    ...of, the enactments in that section which will exempt him from its operatiou. (a) Compare 44 Geo. 3, c. 98, Sched. A. SB. 4S. 0 JAURALDE U. PARKER 177 Now he relies on the preceding section which speaks of houses kept for the sale of beer at a penny half-penny or less the quart, and of the s......
  • R v Robinson
    • United Kingdom
    • Exchequer
    • March 16, 1837
    ...on the present question, but several may be referred to as containing analogies and dicta favourable to the sheriff In Rex v. Jetherell (Parker, 177), he was held entitled to poundage, in the case of an extent in aid, on the whole debt paid over by him to the prosecutor, although he went ou......
  • Attorney General v Brown
    • United Kingdom
    • Exchequer
    • June 7, 1817
    ...entitled to poundage from the money being paid by compulsion of his levy, as if ho had raised it upon a venditioni exponas; Salk. 332, Parker 177, Lane 74, and if he is entitled to poundage at all, as having levied, he must have the whole; The King v. Caldwdl (ante, vol. 1, p. 279). Lens, f......
  • Delauney v Mitchell
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court
    • December 9, 1816
    ...exchange that the want of consideration will be set up as a defence, it is not competent to the plaintiff, after * See Dobson v. Bolton, 1 Park, 177, 7th ed ; Macdougall v. The Royal Exchange Assurance Company, 4 Campb. 283, and supra, 130. 1 STARK. 440. REX V. GASH 523 he has closed his ca......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Eminent domain after Kelo v. City of New London: an argument for banning economic development takings.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 29 No. 2, March 2006
    • March 22, 2006
    ...plaintiffs were located on parcel 4A, which was designated for "park support," either parking or retail services for the adjacent state park. (177) The NLDC estimated that the plan would create hundreds of construction jobs and roughly 1,200 to 2,300 permanent jobs. (178) Property tax reven......
  • Labor's Antitrust Problem: A Case for Worker Welfare.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 130 No. 2, November 2020
    • November 1, 2020
    ...discusses how state legislators, unlike municipal governments, are well positioned to craft statutes that avoid antitrust preemption under Parker (177) and analyzes case law to demonstrate that a proposal like Seattle's is not preempted by the NLRA. Normative Justification A state legislati......
  • TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING: OVERCROWDING AT AMERICA'S NATIONAL PARKS.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 94 No. 2, December 2018
    • December 1, 2018
    ...instance, in perusing the website for the Gates of the Arctic National Park, the NPS stated that there are no defined trails within the park. (177) To appeal to more visitors, it might be beneficial to suggest ways to enjoy the park other than hiking on ranger-created Additionally, the NPS ......
2 provisions

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