Timothy Powell, Joshua Powell, and Thomas Hungerford Powell, surviving partners of Robert Mitchell, deceased, - Plaintiffs; Joseph Maria Sonnet, Antonio Bernis, and Joseph Maria Bernis, surviving Partners of Francisco Bernis, deceased, - Defendants
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1827 |
| Date | 01 January 1827 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 4 E.R. 976
KING'S BENCH.
Mews' Dig. xi. 481. S.C. 1 Dow and Cl. 56, and in Ex. Ch. 3 Bing. 381; 11 Moo. 330. Followed in R. v. Johnson, 1836, 6 Nev. and M. 883; and see Scott v. Bennett, 1871, L.R. 5 H.L. 248.
[545] ENGLAND. (king's bench.) TIMOTHY POWELL, JOSHUA POWELL, and THOMAS HUNGEBFORD POWELL, surviving partners of ROBERT MITCHELL, deceased,-Plaintiffs; JOSEPH MARIA SONNET, ANTONIO BERNIS, and JOSEPH MARIA BERNIS, surviving Partners of FRANCISCO BERNIS, deceased,- Defendants. [Mews' Dig. xi. 481. S.C. 1 Dow and Cl. 56, and in Ex. Ch. 3 Bing. 381; 11 Moo. 330. Followed in R. v. Johnson, 1836, 6 Nev. and M. 883; and see Scott v. Bennett, 1871, L.R. 5 H.L. 248.] Upon immaterial issues it is not necessary that verdicts should be given. The jury may be discharged from giving such verdicts without consent of the parties. This was a writ of error, brought on the affirmance by the Exchequer Chamber of a judgment of the Court of King's Bench, in an action of assu/nvpsit. The action was commenced in Michaelmas Term, 1824, issue was joined as of Hilary term, 1825, and the cause was tried in the vacation after Hilary Term, in that year. 976 POWELL V. SONNET [1827] I BLIGH N.S. The declaration consisted of twenty counts. The twelve first counts were for special damages, alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiffs below, and their late partner, Francisco Bernis, in his lifetime, and by them after the death of their late partner, in the sale by the Defendants below, and their late partner, Robert Mitchell, of a quantity of wool consigned to them by the Plaintiffs below, and their late partner, Francisco Bernis, for sale. The 13th, 14th, [546] 15th, and 16th counts, were for money paid, laid out, and expended; money had and received; money due for interest, and upon an account stated in the lifetime of Francisco Bernis and Robert Mitchell; and the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th counts were similar counts, except that they were laid after the deaths of Francisco Bernis and Robert Mitchell. The Defendants below put in several pleas. To the first sixteen counts of the declaration, they pleaded the general issue, and to the four last counts, they also pleaded the general issue; they then pleaded the statute of limitations to the whole declaration, and to the eight last counts they pleaded a set off. Upon the two first pleas the Plaintiffs below joined issue; to the third plea they replied, that before and at the time when the several causes of action in the declaration mentioned arose, the Plaintiffs below resided, and from thence had been resident beyond the seas, and that Francisco- Bernis at the time when the causes of action in the first sixteen counts mentioned arose, and from thence until the time of his death, was resident beyond the seas; and to the last plea they replied, that they were not indebted to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v Bennett
...v. DiggonsENR 3 B. & Ald. 546. The Marquis of Anglesea v. Dibden 10 Bingh. 568. Powell v. SonnettENR 3 Bingh. 381; S. C. on Appeal, 1 Bligh, N. S. 545. England v. Davison 9 Dowl Pr. C. 1052. Kilburn v. KilburnENR 13 M. & W. 671. Grindley v. HallowayENR 1 Dougl. 307. Good v. WatkinsENR 3 Eas......
-
Empson against Fairfax and Weaver
...E. 413. And see Bird v. Higgiwson, 5 A. & E. 83. (d) 10 Bing. 568. See Norris v. Daniel, 1-0 Bing. 507. () 3 Bing. 381. S. C. in IX P. 1 Bligh, N. S. 545. 8AB.*B.m WHITWILL V. SCHEBE 851 succeeding on the first issue. [Patteson J. Then the issues would have to be tried separately. In Dibben......
-
The King against Thomas Johnson
...discharge the jury from giving any verdict; Cosaey v. Diggons (2 B. & Aid. 546). [Parke B. referred to Powell v. Smnett (3 Bing. 381. 1 Bligh, N. S. 545).] That these issues were immaterial appears from Bex v. The Mayor and Aldermen of London (3 B. & Ad. 255), where it was held a valid cust......
-
Goodman against Harvey and Others
...having been irregular, on account of its being given separately. (b) 3 Bing. 381. S. C. affirmed in error in the House of Lords, 1 Bligh, N. S. 545 ; where see the judgment of Lord Lyndhurst, p. 552. (e) Cossey v. Diggons, 2 B. & Aid. 546. (a)2 Lord Denman C.J., Littledale, Patteson, and Co......