The King against The Sheriff of Middlesex
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 May 1799 |
| Date | 06 May 1799 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 1377
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
8T.R.258. HADLEY V. CLARKE 1377 [258] the king against the sheriff of middlesex. Monday, May 6th, 1799. Where bail are put in in due time, an exception must first be entered before the sheriff can be ruled to bring in the body; and the adding bail afterwards does not supersede the necessity of such exception before an attachment can issue against the sheriff on account of the added bail not having justified in time. Conste shewed cause against a rule for setting aside an attachment .against the sheriff for irregularity. The writ was returnable the first return of the term; bail was put in in due time, but not justified. The sheriff was ruled to bring in the body ; which rule expired on the 22d of April. On the 19th of April, notice was given to the plaintiff of added bail, with notice to justify on the 22d; on which day another notice of added bail was se.rved, with notice to justify on the 24th. But in the mean time, the rule for the attachment was made absolute on the 23d. Park, in support of the present rule, said that the bail never having been excepted to the plaintiff, could not rule the sheriff to bring in the body, and consequently could not attach him on account of the bail not having justified in time. Conste observed that there was no occasion to except to added bail, because the same reason did not apply to them as to the original bail) who are to be deemed sufficient pro confesso, by the plaintiff having taken an assignment of the bail bond (a), sed, Per Curiam (after consulting th'e Master). There is no difference, according to the practice, in this respect between the original and added bail: in neither case can the sheriff be attached on account of the bail not have justified in time, unless they have been accepted to. Rule absolute. The end of Easter term.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frustration
...897 (KB) [ Paradine ]. 9 See, for example, Walton v Waterhouse (1673), 2 Wms Saund 420, 85 ER 1233 (KB); Hadley v Clark (1799), 8 TR 259, 101 ER 1377 (KB); Atkinson v Ritchie (1809), 10 East 530, 103 ER 877 (KB). 10 Above note 8 at 27 (Aleyn). 11 Ibid . 12 Hyde v Dean of Windsor (1597), Cro......