Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Courts of Exchequer and Exchequer Chamber, at Law, in Equity, and in Error; From Michaelmas Term, 7 Geo. IV., to [Hilary Term, 10 & 11 Geo. IV.], Both Inclusive, [1826-1830] Volume 2

Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Courts of Exchequer and Exchequer Chamber, at Law, in Equity, and in Error; From Michaelmas Term, 7 Geo. IV., to [Hilary Term, 10 & 11 Geo. IV.], Both Inclusive, [1826-1830] Volume 2

List price: US$22.40

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1853 edition. Excerpt: ...against the consignor, when they dare to state on the records of a Court of Justice that they possessed themselves of them by virtue of that writ, they cannot be contradicted-.-but that, to defeat justice, their plea must be taken to be true, although negatived by their conduct, although shown to be false by the oaths of some of those who pleaded it? It is proper to take notice of the cases that have been cited by the counsel for the plaintiffs in error. The first that was mentioned was Crowther v. Ramsbottom, 7 Term Rep. 654. In that case the defendants were authorized by the writ of justicies to do all that they were charged to have done. They were empowered to attach the plaintiff by his goods, to compel an appearance. They did no more, for the property taken was restored on the plaintiff's entering an appearance. If they used too much violence, that should have been new assigned, and if they took more property than it was necessary for them to take, that, as Lord KENYON says, only rendered them liable to an action on the case on the statute of Marlebridge, but did not make them trespassers. Lord KENYON says, " If he can show that he had a legal justifi-P325 cation for what he did, that is suflieient. A man may distrain for rent and avow for heriot service." In the case before us, the writ does not justify all that the plaintiffs have done. In the language of Lord KENYON, it is not a legal justification for what they have done, ' on the contrary, the conduct of the plaintiffs is so unlike the conduct required by the writ, that the defendant has a right to say, that what was done could not have been done in execution of the writ. In the case of the distress mentioned by Lord KENYON, it is precisely the same thing to the party...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 212 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 11mm | 386g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236942566
  • 9781236942562