The King v Ellis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 May 1814 |
| Date | 14 May 1814 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 145 E.R. 1318
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER
[23] the kinu v. ellis. Saturday, 14th May, 1814.-To Scire Facias on bond to the : Crown for Excise duties, Plea of payment after day, but before writ issued, and acceptance by the Crown in satisfaction, held insufficient. King not bound by the 4th of Anne. Scire Facias on bond to the Crown, in double the value of the duties mentioned in the condition, conditioned to pay the duties of excise charged and chargeable on a certain quantity of brandy imported by defendant, and lodged in the warehouse of the London Dock Company, by virtue of the home-consumption act, before the said goods should be taken out of the warehouse ; "and in case the said goods should not be so taken out for home consumption on payment of the duties, or for exportation within one year from the date of bond, that the obligors should at the end of the said year pay the said duties, and all charges that might be incurred by the officers of Excise in rqspectof the said goods." Plea, Payment before the said goods were taken out of the warehouse, and before the issuing of the writ of Scire Facias, but after the expiration df the said year, of all said duties and charges before that time incurred by the officers of excise, and acceptance by the Crown in full discharge of the same. .Replication^ negativing payment of the full amount of the said duties within the year, arid acceptance in discharge : and averring, that at the end of the year, further charges to the amount of 501. had been incurred by the officers of excise in respect of the said goods. Demurrer and joinder. Spankie, insisted that the plea in bar amounted in effect to accord and satisfaction, and was effectual [24] at common law : and if not, that it wns a good plea under the statute of the 4th of Anne. This is not the case of a sum of money due by deed, requiring a defeasance of commensurate authority, and to which a plea of payment after the day would be bad ; nor is it a debt constituted by the writing itself. This (/) Patman v. Vaughan, 1 T. R. in notis. 1 PRICE, 23. THE KING V. ELLIS 131!) is not a mere money bond, where the debt becomes due on the day mentioned, but mi obligation to pay certain duties, on certain events, as soon as the amount should be ascertained, to which this is a good plea, since by the statute of Anne, payable before action brought may be pleaded in bar; and if payment merely were not sufficient, the subsequent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Rev. James Miller, Plaintiff; Thomas Jackson, James Jackson, Joseph Jackson, Edward Clarke, Edward Maughan, Thomas Darling and John Rawlings, since Deceased, Defendants
...rector of that parish in which the lands were situated. Notwithstanding the inaccuracy, the Gourt directed issues. In Prevost v. Benett (1 Price, 23G; 3 Eag. & Y. 705), the modus was laid as received time out of mind by the vicar. It appeared, that the creation of the vicarage was after the......
-
THE QUEEN v CHARLES HAROLD WALKER, Heir-at-Law, and DAVID DALY, Personal Representative of WILLIAM LEWIS WALKER, deceased. [CHANCERY.]
...Representative of WILLIAM LEWIS WALKER, deceased. Kettleby v. HalesENR 3 Lev. 119. Salked v. Abbott Hayes, 576, 582. The King . EllisENR 1 Price, 23. Scholey v. MearnsENR 7 East, 148. Vesey v. Harris Cro. Car. Ex parte UsherUNK 1 Ball & B. 199. Smith v. Pepper 2 Law Rec. N. S. 23, 24. The K......
-
Bernard John Daly v Patrick Kirwan
...15 M. & W. 23. Worthington v. WigleyENR 3 Bing. N. C. 454. Fowell v. Forrest 2 Saund. Rep. 5th ed. 47 s. & 48. The King v. EllisENR 1 price, 23. Player v. BandyENR 10 Mod. 26. Turner v. Davies 2 Saund. Rep. 148. Ognel v. RandalENR Cro. Jac. 29. Curtis v. RushENR 2 Ves. & Bea. 416. Hatchell ......
-
THE QUEEN v The Heir and Terre-tenants of WILLIAM BAYLEY
...and The Heir and Terre-tenants of WILLIAM BAYLEY. 4 & 5 Anne, c. 16, Eng. Attorney-General v. DonaldsonENR 7 M. & W. 442. Rex v. EllisENR 1 Price, 23. Salkeld v. Abbott Hayes, 584. Rex v. Dennis 1 H. & Jo. 194. The Queen v. Daly 1 Ir. Law Rep. 381. Rolle's Abridgement p. 372. Rowles v. Lust......