Violett v Allnutt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 May 1811 |
| Date | 04 May 1811 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 128 E.R. 166
Common Pleas Division
3d. Because, if the Defendants below intended to dispute the fact of the said bill being presented according to the tenor and effect thereof and of the said acceptance, they ought to have put it in issue below, and cannot set up the same after judgment ; and that by the course they then thought proper to take, it is evident their object was, and is, delay, and nothing else. G tFFIN WILSON. The case was argued on this day, and the authorities of Ambrose v. Hopwood, Rushton v. Aspinall, Doug. 654. Parker v. Cordon, 7 East, 385, were referred to. The Court ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the Court of King's Bench should be affirmed. Note, The reporter was not present at the decision of this case. But Lord Erskine is said to have expressed himself, that if there had been no such averment as could have led to proof of the due presentment, the declaration would have been bad ; but it must be apparent, that upon that allegation, due presentment might have been proved. It would be dangerous to allow such subtleties to prevail. Lord Eldon, Chancellor, is reported to have said, The more the counsel for the Plaintiff in error satisfies me that a presentment at the place where the bill was made payable, was necessary, the more he satisfies me that I must intend by this allegation, that such a presentment was made. See the case of Bowes v. Howe, in the Exchequer-Chamber, in error, Trinity term, 1813, post, vol. 5. ( 4181: CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS, AND XCHEQUER-CHAMBER, IN EASTER TERM, IN THE FIFTY-FIRST YEAR OF THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. ANONYMOUS. May 3, 1811. The Court refused to amend a recovery by changing the county, the premises lying in a parish which ran into two counties, and lying wholly in the county omitted, and no part in the county mentioned. Vaughan &Fit moved to amend a recovery suffered more than sixty years since of lands described in the deed declaring the uses, as lying in the parish of Appleby, and described in the recovery to lie in the county of Derby, by striking out the words county of Derby, and substituting the county of Leicester, upon an affidavit that the parish of Appleby lies partly in the county of Derby, and partly in the county of Leicester, and that the premises were wholly situate in that part of the parish of Appleby which lay in the county of Leicester, and no part of them in that part of the parish which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunter and Others against Leathley
...word "wheresoever," introduced after " from the loading thereof," was held to be sufficient for that purpose. Then, Violett v. Allnutt (3 Taunt. 419), is expressly in point for the plaintiffs. There it was held, [868] that liberty to touch at a port for any purpose whatsoever, included libe......
-
Glynn v Margetson & Company
...v. Glynn and others Leduc v. WardDID=ASPMELR 58 L. T. Rep. N. S. 908 6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 290 20 Q. B. Div. 475 Gairdner v. SenhouseENR 3 Taunt 419 Bill of lading — Contract contained in — Description of voyage Leduc v. Ward (58 L. T. Rep. N. S. 908; 6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 290; 20 Q. B. Div. ......
-
Barclay v Stirling and Another
...confined to freight on goods loaded at Jamaica, but is to be extended to goods loaded during the voyage from Jamaica to her ports of (ft)1 3 Taunt. 419. (of See Sharp v. Gladstone, 7 East, 24. 3M.&S.15. CHAPLIN V. LEROUX 957 discharge. The leave to call at other ports, and load there, puts ......
-
Leathly v Hunter
...within this policy. Loading, as above, can only mean a loading at one of the four places specified as termini a quo. In Violett v. Alnutt (3 Taunt. 419), indeed, on a policy on goods at and from Plymouth to Malta, with liberty to touch at Penzance or any other port in the Channel to the wes......