Thorpe against Beer
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 February 1819 |
| Date | 05 February 1819 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 403
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
thorpe against beer. Friday, Feb. 5th, 1819. Practice. Waiver of irregularity. Gaselee had obtained a rule nisi for setting aside a writ of execution for irregularity, on the ground that a writ of error had been previously sued out and allowed, although it had not been served. It [374] appeared that the writ of error was sued out on the 12th November, returnable on the 29th. Judgment was signed on the 22d of November; notice of taxation of costs was given on the 12th November for the 21st, on which day the costs were taxed, and the writ of execution was issued on the 30th November. It further appeared, that on 23d December, the defendant took out a summons before a single Judge, for the plaintiff to shew cause why the writ of execution should not be set aside for irregularity; and the only irregularity then suggested was, that no notice in writing had been given of the taxation of costs. That application, however, failed. The allowance of the writ of error had never been served on plaintiff's attorney, nor had he any knowledge of it previously to the present application. Cornyn shewed cause. He admitted that the service of the allowance of a writ of error was not necessary, but contended, that the defendant, by not mentioning this irregularity at the time of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jaques v Caesar
...having been communicated to the Judge on the former application, the defendant was now too late to take advantage of the irregularity. 2 B. & A. 373, Thorpe v. Seer. Tidd's Pract 1187. (t) If the bail put in be sham bail, the plaintiff may treat them as a nullity, and issue execution. 1 B. ......
-
Crawford v Gillmor
...Before LORD ASHBOURNE, C., SIR P. O'BRIEN, C.J., and BARRY, L.J. (1891. No. 4565.) CRAWFORD and GILLMOR James v. StantonENR 2 B. & Ald. 373. Kenna v. NugentUNK Ir. R. 7 C. L. 464. Coneys v. ConeysUNK 8 Ir. C. L. R. 379. Williams v. HealesELR L. R. 9 C. P. 177. Doe d. Higginbotham v. BartonE......