The King against Shepheard and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 November 1791 |
| Date | 08 November 1791 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 100 E.R. 1075
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
2 East, 308. 6 ibid. 356.
Discussed, R. v. Birmingham (Rector), 1837, 7 A. & E. 258.
[381] cases argued and determined in the court of king's bench, in michaelmas term, in the thirty-second year of the keign of george III. the king against shepherd and others. Tuesday, Nov. 8th, 1791. The Court will not grant a quo warranto information to try the validity of an election to the office of churchwarden. [2 East, 308. 6 ibid. 356.] [Discussed, E. v. Birmingham (Rector), 1837, 7 A. & E. 258.] Dayrell moved for an information in nature of a quo warranto, calling on the defendants to shew by what authority they claimed the office of churchwardens of Newark upon Trent, on affidavits which impeached their election ; and he mentioned an instance in the year 1782, when a similar application had been successful. Lord Kenyon, Ch.J. said, that had it not been for the case cited, he should not have been disposed to grant a rule even to shew cause: for that this was not an usurpation on the rights or prerogatives of the Crown, for which only the old writ of quo warranto lay ; and that an information in nature of a quo warranto could only be granted in such cases ; and he observed, that the case in 1782 passed by the consent of both parties, who were equally desirous of having an issue directed to try the validity of the election ; for which reason the counsel, who were to have opposed the rule, declined objecting to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King against The Rector and Churchwardens of Birmingham
...to grant the rule for a mandamus. In the two cases first cited by the Attorney-General, a quo warranto lay; here, as in Rex v. Shepherd (4 T. R. 381), it does not, [Sir W. W. Follett referred to Anthony v. Seger (1 Hagg. Consist. Rep. 9), as shewing that, in the present case, resort might b......
-
The Queen against Mousley, Clerk
...exercised by the Great Seal: and Lord Mansfield's opinion, in Bex v. Gregory (It), was treated [952] as an obiter dictum. Rex v. Shepherd (4 T. R. 381), where an information was refused for the office of a churchwarden, is an authority against the rule. In Bex v. Bumstead (2 B. & Ad. 699), ......
-
The King against Ramsden and Others
...Campbell, Attorney-General, Sir W. W. Follett, Erie, and Jardine, contra. The case of a churchwarden (Rex v. Dawbeny(b)1, Bex v. Shepherd (4 T. R. 381)), is distinguishable. That is an office the right to which may be tried in the Ecclesiastical Courts. This, not being a recognised common l......
-
Ex parte Mawby
...claimants. The right to vote is temporal. In Rex v. The Rector &c. of Birmingham (7 A. & E. 254) Lord Den man refers to Rex \. Shepherd (4 T. R. 381), where it was held that no quo warranto lay in respect of the office of churchwarden. [Erie J. Suppose the fact here to be that, even if the ......