Thomas Greaves against John Humfries and George Major Humfries
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
| Judgment Date | 19 April 1855 |
| Date | 19 April 1855 |
English Reports Citation: 119 E.R. 316
Queen's Bench Division
S. C. 24 L. J. Q. B. 190; 1 Jur. N. S. 473; 3 W. R. 371.
31g OREAVES V. HUMFRIES 4 Et, & 851. [851] THOMAS GREAVES against JOHN HUMFRIES AND GEORGE MAJOR HUMFRIES, Thursday, April 19th, 1815. In an action of contract against two defendants, A. and B., A. suffered judgment by default, B. pleaded Never indebted, on which issue was joined. On the trial, it appeared by the evidence that B., the defendant who pleaded Never indebted, was solely liable, A., the defendant who had allowed judgment to go by default, not being a contracting party. B.'s counsel claimed a nonsuit. The Judge ordered the record to be amended, by striking out the name of the defendant A., and directed a verdict against B., subject to leave to move to enter a nonsuit, if the Court should think that the amendment ought not to have been made.ùHeld that the amendment was properly made ; and the Court refused a rule. [S. C. 24 J, Q. B. 190 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 473 ; 3 W. 371.] Suggestion on the record that the writ had been issued against both defendants; that the defendant George Major Humfries did not appear ; and that judgment by default had been signed against him for 791. 17s. lid., the amount indorsed on the writ. Declaration against the other defendant John Hurufries for work and labour. Plea by John Humfries : That the defendants never were indebted mod et forma. issue thereon. On the trial, before Cresswell J., at the last Spring Assizes for York, it appeared that the action was brought to recover the amount of an attorney's bill of costs in ass action brought in the name of George Major Humfries for a libel on him. It appeared, however, that the retainer of the plaintiff to conduct the suit was from the defendant John Humfries only, George Major Humfries, the plaintiff in that action, not being a person on whose credit the attorney chose to proceed. On this...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Gruhn v M Pupkewitz & Sons (Pty) Ltd
...verder aangevoer (a) so 'n benadering sou afwyk van die gevestigde en korrekte benadering van vroeër, vgl. Venter v Kruger, 1971 (3) SA op bl. 851, 852. (b) Prinsipieel is daar teenkanting teen dwang tot vroeë ontblooting van F getuienis; Mowschenson se saak, supra op bl. 367B; Edward se sa......
-
S v Loubser
...van Wet 23 van 1963 van toepassing is op enige Hofbevel tot onderhoud van enige persoon. Hleka v Johannesburg City Council, 1949 (1) SA op bl. 851 - 852. (a) Die Wetgewer moes bewus gewees het dat die Hooggeregshof selfs H voor die inwerkingtreding van Wet 37 van 1953 onderhoudsbevele met t......
-
Ex parte Die Minister van Justisie: In re S v De Bruin
...129 - 131; Principal Immigration Officer v Hawabu and Another, 1936 A.A. te bl. 30 - 36; Hleka v Johannesburg City Council, 1949 (1) SA te bl. 851 - 852; Bhana F v. Dönges, 1950 (4) SA te bl. 662G - 664H; Stellenbosch Farmers' Winery v Distillers Corporation and Another, 1962 (1) SA te bl. ......
-
Strydom v Die Land - en Landboubank van Suid-Afrika
...transaksies: Trust Bank of Africa Ltd. v Eksteen, supra op bl. 411 - 412, 415 - 416; Credit Corporation of SA Ltd. v Botha, 1968 (4) SA op bl. 851 - 852, is klaarblyklik onderskeibaar van die onderhawige geval. In daardie gevalle het dit gegaan oor die posisie van H 'n onskuldige derde part......