Whitmore v Wakerley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 January 1865 |
| Date | 30 January 1865 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 159 E.R. 642
Exchequer Division
S. C. 34 L. J. Ex 83; 11 Jur. (N. S) 182. Considered, Staffordshire Joint Stock Banking Company v. Emmott, 1867, L. R. 2 Ex. 222, Rossi v. Bailey, 1868, L. R. 3 Q B 627.
injury. Under these circumstances we are all of opinion that there was evidence of negligence for the jin V. I own it Lippcur to me to be some evidence of negligence, if for ten minutes or a quarter of an hour after a train has arrived and set down its passengers there is an obstacle to impede those passengers from reaching the platfor m And for mischief thence arising, and not attributable to the plaintiff's negligence, I think the defendants are responsible. The Court all think the facts of this case disclose evidence of negligence , consequently the rule to enter a nonsuit must be discharged. Rule discharged. [538] WHirrmoRE r WAKERLEY. Jan. 30, 1865 ùWhere a debtor, who made a composition deed tinder the Bankruptcy Act, 1861, was sued by a non-assenting creditor and stittered judgment by default, the Court refused to order the sheriff to withdraw from possession of the debtor's goods under a fi. fa. issued on the judgment. [S. C. 14 L J. Ex 83 ; 11 Jur. (N. 5) 182. Considered, Stalford.siale Joint Stock Bani-Ang Company v. Enrnott, 180, L. ft. 2, Ex. 222 , Passt v. Batley, 168, L. R. 3 Q B 627.] Besley had obtained a rule calling on the plaintiff to chew cause why the sheriff of Middle-sex should not forthwith withdraw from possession of the defendant's goods seized under the execution issued in this cause It appeared b the affidavits that the writ of summons issued on the 24th of November, 1864 On the 6th of December a deed of composition under the Bankruptcy Act, 1.861, ww, executed by the requisite majority in number and value of the creditors of the defendant The plaintiff had notice of the deed, and it contained a clause of release. On the 9th of December the deed was registered, and a cet tificate of its filing MW! registration was given to the defendant. On the 13th of December the plaintiff obtained a Judge's order, that three days after service the plaintiff be at liberty to proceed in the action ,LS if personal service of the writ of summons had been effected on the defendant No appearance having been entered, judgment was signed on the 20th of December , and on the 22nd the sheriff seized the defendant's goods under a writ of heti f;icias A similar application haad been made to...
To continue reading
Request your trial