The King against The Inhabitants of Crediton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 November 1800 |
| Date | 19 November 1800 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 23
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
[59] the king against the inhabitants of crediton. Wednesday, Nov. 19th, 1800. Where the master of an apprentice told him "that he had no further employment for him and he might go where he pleased," and the apprentice hearing of another master was going to him, and being met by his original master, and asked where he was going, answered that he was going to U., to (a) Where a promissory note had been given for money lent, but when produced in Court was unstamped; Lord Kenyon C.J. permitted the plaintiff to recover on a common count for money lent, by-proving that when the money for which the note had been given was demanded of the defendant, he acknowledged the debt. Tyte v. Jones, sittings at Westminster, adjourned to 29th of October 1788. So in Alms v. Hodgson, 7 Term Rep. 241, the Court held that the plaintiff could not recover upon a written contract for payment of wages made in Jamaica, which by the laws of that island was void for want of a stamp; yet that he might recover upon a count for a quantum meruit, because the written contract could not be received in evidence. Yet where the defendants, who had advanced money upon the security of a ship at sea, took an absolute conveyance of the property, which afterwards turned out to be defective and void by reason of its not being conformable to the statute 26 Geo. 3, c. 60, s. 17, directing such transfers of property to contain certain particulars; the Court held that the vendees could not retain the possession of the ship, which they had seized upon her arrival, by resorting to the general lien, which the possession of the grand bill of sale might otherwise have conferred on them; but that they were liable in trover brought by the assignees of the vendor who had in the mean time become a bankrupt. Bolleston v. Hibbert, 3 Term Rep. 406. 24 THE KING V, CREDITON 1 EAST,60, which the master replied " he might go there or where he pleased;" held this was not such a particular assent of the original master to the service with U. as would enable the apprentice thereby to gain a settlement, tho' the indentures were not delivered up or cancelled. Two justices by an order removed William Milton, Mary his wife, and Mary their daughter, from the parish of North Tauton to the parish of Crediton, both in the county of Devon. 'The sessions on appeal confirmed the order, subject to the^opinion of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R against The Inhabitants of Whitchurch
...the second master, which is necessary in order to make it by construction of law a service with the first. Bex v. Inhabitants of Crediton (1 East, 59). Gurney contra. That case was decided on the ground, that the sessions had found as a fact, that there was no particular assent of the origi......
-
The King against The Inhabitants of Ashby-de-la-Zouch
...to go to her mother and get a place where she pleased : and then no settlement was gained, according to The King v. Crediton (a). At (a) 1 East, 59. 1 B. & AID. 120. WATSON V. MEDEX 45 all events this was a question for the sessions, and they have expressly determined that the facts proved ......
-
101 ER 1293
...English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 1293 IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH. The King against The Inhabitants of Chipping Warden 1 East, 59, 73. ST. E. 109, THE KING 'V. CHIPPING' WARDEN 1293 the king against the inhabitants or chipping warden. Saturday, Jan. 26th, 1799. An apprentice agreed with'......