Welby v Canning
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 80 E.R. 356
King's Bench Division
[210] 267. welby versus canning. Mich. 15 Jac. Rot. 2617. Scire fac. Bail. The rendring of the body must be of record, and how it must be done. Mo. 888. 1 Roll. 337. 2 Ro. 576. Ant. 116. Winch. 42. 1 Le. 58. Welby brought a scire fac. against Canning, upon a recognizance of bail of six hundred and fifty pounds for one Davenant, and shews, that he had judgment Mich. 4 Jac. against Davenant, and that he did neither render his body, nor satisfie his debt. HOBART, sll NORRIS V. STAPS 357 The defendant pleaded, that after the judgment, soil. 23 Jac. anno 4. Davenant came into Court and rendred his body to the prison of the Fleet, in execution and discharge of his bail, and that the plaintiff did refuse to take him in execution ; and the plaintiff denied the yielding of his body, and so an issue. But it was resolved by the Court, that this was ill pleaded, for the yielding of his body being an act in Court, and in a discharge of his bail which is of record, must be it self of record, and therefore ought to be concluded prout patet per record, and that the other plea should have been nul tiel record. But indeed in this case there was no record entred of it, and yet it was proved by the oath of Calwick the attorney, and another in open Court, that Davenant came in for that and other causes, and was committed to the Fleet and after set at large. And in this case divers precedents were shewed for the mariner of the entry, upon the yielding of the body upon the bail, soil. P. 12 H. 8. Rot. 324. & P. 29 Elik & Tr. 20Eliz. Rofc. 125. between Young and Tomson in exonerationem manucaptorum fe postea, because he was not prayed in execution by the party, he was discharged. Et P. 6 Jac. Rot. 105. such a yielding of the body was entred in exonerationem manucaptorum. So the true form is, that the entry be made of record of the yielding in discharge of the bail. But then if the plaintiff, or his attorney be present, he must make his election to take him in execution or to refuse him, whereof...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Siney v Corporation of Dublin
...of the house, the suitability of the materials used, the quality of the workmanship and its fitness for habitation. ( Norris v. Staps Hobart 210, Pearce v.Tucker 3 F. & F. 136, Myers and Co. v. Brent Cross ServiceCo. 1934 1 K.B. 46, Hall v. Burke 3 T.L.R. 165, Brownv. Norton 1954 I.R. 34).......
-
Brown v Norton
...B. at p. 109. (1) 12 M. & W. 52. (2) 12 M. & W. 68. (3) [1901] 2 K. B. 215. (4) 11 M. & W. 5 (5) 2 Ex. D. 336. (6) [1923] 2 K. B. 617. (7) Hobart 210; 80 E. R. 357. (8) [1807] 1 Camp. 38. (9) [1858] 5 C. B. (N.S.) 236. (10) 3 F. & F. 136. (11) 3 Stark. (N.P.) 6. (12) [1934] 1 K. B. 46. (13)......
-
Norris v Staps
...E.R. 357" class="content__heading content__heading--depth1"> English Reports Citation: 80 E.R. 357 King's Bench 268. norris versus staps. Pasch. 14 Jac. Rot. 907. Corporations have power to make laws, and the validity of them. Mesme case, Hutt. 5. 1 Roll. 364. Brownl. 1. R. 48. Mo. 869. Nor......