Williams v Sills
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 December 1810 |
| Date | 11 December 1810 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1237
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
[519] Tuesday, Dec. 11, 1810 williams v sills. (If the plaintiff declares upon a deed, and there is no plea of non est factuni , still, if at the trial he would read any part of the deed which is not upon the record, he must prove it by the attesting witness in the usual way ) Covenant for not keeping premises in repair. Pleas, 1. Performance. 2 A licence. For the purpose of shewing the words of the covenant more fully than they were stated in the declaration, the plaintiff's counsel put iti the deed, which they contended they had right to read without proving it by the subscribing witness, there being no plea of non est fact urn. that this was no payment to discharge the defendant, though his agent at the time owed him more money than the amount of the bill -Tapley v Martens, 8 T. R 451 , mde etiarn. Bolton v Richard, 6 T R 139, 1 Esp N. P C. 106, and Biown v Kewley, 2 Bos and Pul 518 * The cases upon this subject which will be found somewhat contradictory Vide Pansh v. Crawford, Stra 1251 , Vallejo v Wheeler, Cowp 143 , Rich v Coe, Cowp 636 ; James v. Jones, 3 Esp N. P. Cas. 27. 1238 GOATLY V. PAINE 2 CAMP. 620. Lord Ellenborough -The defendant, by refraining from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nagle v Shea
...Doe v. WainwrightENR 5 Ad. & E. 520. Vacher v. CocksENR 1 B. & Ad. 145. Bringloe v. GoodsonENR 5 Bing. N. C. 738. Williams v. SillsENR 2 Camp. 519. Slatterie v. PooleyENR 6 M. & W. 664. Whyman v. GarthENR 8 Ex. 806. Hughes v. Dyeball M. M. 346. Johnson v. Baytup 3 A. & E. 188. Davison v. Ge......
-
Gainsford v Griffith
...consent,, before Parke B. at chambers; and that learned Judge, after taking time for consideration, made the rule absolute.] (h) [See also 2 Camp. 519, Williams v. Sills.] And he must prove that the bond mentioned in the suggestion, and produced to the jury, is that on which the action is b......
-
The Wardens and Commonalty of the Mistery of Fishmongers of the City of London v Robertson and Others
...v. Williams, in Tinkler v. Walpole (14 East, 230), Bacon's Abridgment, Evidence (P.), Slattern v. [70] Pmley (a), Williams v. Sitts (2 Campb. 519), Gillett v. Abbott (7 Ad. & E. 783, 3 N. & P. 24), Collins v. Bayntun (1 Q. B. 117, 4 P. & D. 534). As to the stamp, he cited Heed v. Deere (7 B......
-
Fisher v Smith
...C.B., and Cleasby, B. Fisher v. Smith Westwood v. Bell and anotherENR 4 Camp. 349 Snook v. DavidsonENR 2 Campb. 218 Lanyon v. BlanchardENR 2 Camp. 519 Mann v. ForresterENR 4 Campb. 60 Marine insurance Shipowner and insurance broker Broker employing a sub-agent Westwood v. Bell and another (......