Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

Page

[ocr errors]

Ex parte

[ocr errors]

.

[ocr errors]

.

.

.

.

[ocr errors]

.

.

[ocr errors]

.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Page 1
Rex v. Catesby. 476, 479 Rex v. Wilmington

26 0. Chadderton .

10 v. Woburn, Inhabitants v. Rotherfield Grays 27, of,

202 28, 29 v. Wyllyams 368, 541 Sadler 693 v. Wymondham

478 v. St. Alban's, Inhabit- Rhodes v. Ainsworth 670, 671

, ants of, 140

586 v. St. Botolph 441 | Richardson v. Brown

156 v. St. John . . 545, 558

v. Goss

59 v. St. Margaret's, Leices- Rippiner v. Wright

446 ter

475 Risborough (Corporation of) 0. St. Michael's, Bath 437 v. Batter

633 v. St. Michael's at Thorn Roach v. Ostler

128 451 Robinson v. Vale

332 v. St. Nicholas, Abingdon

v. Vickers

322 451 Robson v. Hall

129 v. St. Pancras 449 | Rock v. Leighton

268 v. St. Paul's, Bedford 448 Rodgers v. Jows

216 v. Sandhurst 430 Roe v. Briggs

269 v. Scammonden 471 Rogers v. Pitcher. 291, 706, 707 v. Somersetshire, Jus

v. Rathburn.

157 tices of, . .

Rose v. Bowler 181, 183, 184 v. Sparrow :

278
Dickenson

156 v. Stainforth and Keadby Rowe v. Roach

506 Canal Company 596 | Rudd's case

202 v. Stockbridge 15 | Rushforth v. Hadfield

58, 60 Stone . 19 Rushton v. Aspinall

400 v. Tamworth

475
v. Taunton, St. Mary 528
v. Theodorick

536 St. Nicholas v. St. Peter in
Tranmer.
39 Ipswich

465 v. Trent and Mersey Ca- St. Paul's, Walden, z. Kimpton nal Company 23

470 v. Trowbridge 16 Salomons v. Stavely

401, 403 o. Twyning 687 Sandiman v. Bridge

457 v. Varlo. 388 Saunders v. Wakefield

711 v. Vernon 269 Savile v. Jackson

492 v. Warley 665 Scandover v. Warne

268 v. Warlow 381, 387 Scott v. Scholey

138 v. Warminster 427, 667, V. Stevens

187 690 Scrace v. Whittington 239 Westerham

440 Sears v. Brink . 711, 712 v. Whitehaven 442 Selby v. Robinson

655 v. Wigston 460 Serra v. Fyffe

495, 496 υ. Williamson 528 v. Wright

495 v. Witten cum Twam- Shaddick v. Bennett

567 brookes 30, 32 Shadgett v. Clipson

207

.

.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Page

[ocr errors]

.

[ocr errors]

.

.

.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

.

[ocr errors]

.

[ocr errors]

.

.

.

.

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Page Shepherd v. Johnson 491 Thompson v. Trail

341 Shipley v. Cooper

142

v. Whitmore 52 Sbirly v. Right

319

v. Woodbridge. 156 Shore v. Bentall

680 | Thornely v. Hebson · 677, 679, Shove v. Pincke

38

681, 682 Shum v. Farrington 507 Throckmorton v. Tracy 286 Skinner v. Gunton

285 Todd v. Maxfield 589, 590 Skip v. Huey 239 Tomkins v. Ashby

525, 706 Skipwith v. Gibson and ano- Touchin's case

318 ther 156 | Traub v. Schmidt

306 Simson v. Ingham 311 Trueman v. Hurst

522 Simpson v. Hill 215 Tubb v. Woodward

323 v. Titterell 701 Tupper v. Powell

157 Smith v. Hodson 7 Turner v. Meymott

221 v. Milles

221 v. Patten

266

V.
v. Sparrow

454
Vaughan v. Atkins

269 v. Stafford

532
Vere v. Loveden

647 Solarte v. Melville 137, 155

Vernon's case

566 Solly v. Forbes

40

Vice v. Lady Anson 264, 265 Somerset, Duke of, v. France, 269

Violett v. Patton

712 Spears v. Hartly.

59
Vogel, Ex parte

576 Spenceley v. Robinson 484, 487 Spieres v. Parkin

286

U. Stadt v. Lill

710 Stapleton v. Conway

150

Underhill v. Ellicombe 110 Stapp v. Lill.

710 Stennel v. Hogg 285, 287

W. Stevens v. Lynch

566 Wadsworth et al. v. Champion, 156 v. Whistler

64 Wain v. Warlters 711, 712 Stephenson v. Hill

269 Walker v. Maitland, 51, 52, 53, Still v. Walls. 214

675 Stoveld v. Eade

129
Wallis v. Lewis

187 Stovy v. Birmingham

111
Walton v. Hambury

239 Sutton v. Toomer 211, 706 Ward v. Harris

286 Levi

568

Warner v. Barber 585, 589 Tait v. Levi 679 Warter v. Hutchinson

46 Tardeveau v. Inns and Smith 156 | Warrington v. Furber 711 Tatham v. Hodgson 679

Watkins's case

425 Taunton v. Costar

221

v. Hewlett 526, 706

, Taylor v. Blair

566, 567

v. Taylor .

156 Templer v. M‘Lachlan 244 Watson Atkins

196 Thatcher v. Gamman

156 Waugh v. Bassell 597, 599 Thomas v. Heathorn 514 Webb v. Fox.

587, 596 Thompson v. Berry et al. 156 Webster v. Spooner

183 v. Thompson 156 Weldon v. Matthews

706 VOL. I.

b

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

v. Nash

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

156

.

.

.

0.

.

.

.

.

Page

Page Welch v. Ireland . 229 Williams v. Germaine

403 90, 92 Williamson v. Allison

227 Welsh v. Troyte 323 Wilson v. Knabley .

48 West v. Belcher

v. Mackreth

221 Wheeler v. Collier

187

V. Royal Exchange 32S

Assurance Company 165 White v. Wilson

448
v. Weller

420 v. Wright

201 Wiltshire v. Sidford : 221 Whitehead v. Tuckett 80 Winslow v. Dawson

156 v. Vaughan. 293 Winter v. White

225 Whitfield v. Broadwood 196 Wood o. Strickland

115 Whelpdale's case. 136 Worrall v. Hand

187 Wigford v. Gill 407, 408 Wright o. Clements

285 Wicker v. Norris

286
v. Laing.

312 Wigley v. Ashton

182
t. Rathay

88 Wilks v. Lorck

268
v. Walker

303 Willcocks v. Nichols

506 Wycalf v.
Wycalf v. Longhead .

156 Williams v. Barber 245 Wythers v. Iseham

123 v. Bartholomew 566 V. The East India

Y. Company 685 | Yaw v. Leman

196

.

.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

.

.

[merged small][ocr errors]

CASES

ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

COURT OF KING'S BENCH,

IN

MICHAELMAS TERM,

IN THE EIGHTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF GEORGE IV.

[blocks in formation]

DURING the vacation, Sir Anthony Hart, Knight, ViceChancellor, was promoted to the office of Chancellor of Ireland, vacant by the resignation of the Right Honorable Lord Manners; and was succeeded by Launcelot Shadwell, of the Honorable Society of Lincoln's Inn, Esq.

On the first day of this term, Charles Frederick Williams, Esq., William Selwyn, Esq., and the Honorable Thomas Erskine, all of Lincoln's Inn, having been, in the course of the vacation, appointed his Majesty's Counsel Learned in the Law, were called within the Bar, and took their rank accordingly.

[blocks in formation]

Brewer and Gregory, Assignees of Pitter, a Bank

rupt, v. Sparrow. 3.BH3 Assignees TROVER, by the plaintiffs, as assignees of one Pitter, cannot at first affirm the act a bankrupt, for certain goods of the bankrupt, alleged to of a creditor interfering

have been wrongfully seized by the defendant. At the with the bank- trial, before Abbott, C. J., at the London adjourned sittings rupt's effects,

after last Hilary term, the cause was referred to a barrisas a contract, and afterwards ter, with power to him, if he should find that the defendant disaffirm it as a tort; although acted in all things bonâ fide, and solely for the benefit of the such act, if

creditors, to find that upon his award, in order to submit disaffirmed by them in the the question of law to the consideration of the Court. The first instance, arbitrator afterwards made his award, in which he stated would have amounted to a the following facts :conversion of the bankrupt's

The commission of bankrupt issued against Pitter, on goods, and

the 21st October, 1825, upon the petition of the plaintiff have rendered the creditor Brewer. The act of bankruptcy upon which the commisliable to the

sion was founded, was committed on the 2d October, 1825. assignees in an action of tro- The assignment to the plaintiffs, under the commission,

was executed on the 3d December, 1825. The goods for which the action was brought, consisted of the stock in trade, household furniture, and effects, found upon the premises of the bankrupt at Cheltenham, in Gloucestershire, where he had carried on business, until the 2d October, 1825, on which day he absconded, and left his dwellinghouse and shop. In consequence of the bankrupt having so absconded, a meeting was held on the evening of the 4th October, 1825, at the defendant's house in London, between the plaintiff Brewer (the petitioning creditor), the bankrupt's father, and the defendant, who was a creditor of the bankrupt; when, after some discussion as to what was best to be done for the benefit of the creditors, it was agreed that the defendant should go down immediately to Cheltenham. Accordingly, the defendant left London the same evening, and arrived at Cheltenham on the following morning, when he found the house and shop of the

ver.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »