Willett v Sparrow
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 May 1816 |
| Date | 25 May 1816 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 128 E.R. 1159
Common Pleas Division
S. C. 2 Marsh. 293.
6 TAUNT. 576. WILLETT 1). SPARRO 11.59 borough C. J. is, that "it being the case of process issuing out of the Court of Chancery, we think that it does not come within the stat. 23 H. 6, c. 9, which directs that sheriffs shall let all persons out of prison by them arrested or being in their custody by force of any writ, bill, or warrant in any action personal, which words are confined to actions at law. A subsequent statute, 13 Car. 2, stat. 2, c. 2, which was made on the same subject, is distinctly confined to actions in the King's Bench and Common Pleas, and it does not appear to have beeu the intent of the legislature to interfere with the process of a court of equity. It is extremely clear, that the usage has been for the sheriff to take a bail-bond in 401. on an attachment, and it is so laid down in Danby v. Lawson." Here, then, is the judgment of a very able Judge, who had practised all his life in courts of equity, that the established practice was to take bail for 401. ; and it would be ton much for us to say that all the learned persons who have presided in that court for a century, have been mistaken, or ignorant of the practice. But Lord Loughborough's judgment does not stop here; he goes on to chew how the process would be regulated by the Court of Chancery. It is for the Court out of which it issues, to regulate the practice of their own officer. And we are of opinion that these bonds are neither compellable to be taken, by the statute, nor prohibited by the statute; but that they are good at common law : and that whether a bail-bond shall be taken or not, is in the discretion of [576] the sheriff, as regulated by the practice of that Court. We therefore are of opinion that the action on the bond is well supportable, and that the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment. Judgment for the Plaintiff. WILLETT V. SPARROW. May 25, 1816. [S. C. 2 Marsh, 293.] The Court will not compel a sheriff to specify in his return to a heti facias the particular goods taken, and the sum for which each article was sold. Best Serjt. moved that the sheriff of Norfolk might amend hie return to a writ of fieri facia by particularly specifying the goods which he had taken under this levy, on the ground that be had returned only an aggregate sum exceeding 6001. and had not specified the several goods which he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilbraham v Snow
...and Willes, 80.] The Court will not compel the sheriff to specify in his return the price at which each particular article has been sold. 6 Taunt. 576, Willet v. Sparrow. 2 Marsh. 293, S. C. [Before the passing of the stat. 1 & 2 W. 4, c. 58], if the property in the goods were disputed, the......
-
Slade v Hawley, Bart
...makes a general return, in which he is not bound to state the particulars, and is not bound by the value he returns : Willett v. Sparrow (6 Taunt. 576). There would be no mutuality between the parties, if under such circumstances the plaintiff were bound to state these particulars in an act......
-
Hatchwell v Cooke
...English Reports Citation: 128 E.R. 1159 Common Pleas Division Hatchwell and Cooke S. C. 2 Marsh. 293. 6 TAUNT. 576. WILLETT 1). SPARRO 11.59 borough C. J. is, that "it being the case of process issuing out of the Court of Chancery, we think that it does not come within the stat. 23 H. 6, c.......