Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

Courts of Exchequer & Exchequer Chamber,

AT LAW, IN EQUITY, AND IN ERROR,

FROM

MICHAELMAS TERM, 8 GEO. IV.

TO

MICHAELMAS TERM, 9 GEO. IV., BOTH INCLUSIVE:

WITH

TABLES OF THE CASES AND PRINCIPAL MATTERS:

BY

EDWARD YOUNGE, AND JOHN JERVIS,

OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, ESQRS. BARRISTERS AT LAW.

VOL. II.

LONDON:
S. SWEET, 3, CHANCERY LANE; R. PHENEY, 17, FLEET STREET ; STEVENS &
SONS, 39, BELL YARD; SAUNDERS & BENNING, 43, FLEET STREET;

Law Booksellers & Publishers;
AND R. MILLIKEN & SON, GRAFTON STREET, DUBLIN.

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

JUDGES

OF

THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER,

DURING THE PERIOD OF THESE REPORTS.

The Right Hon. Sir WillIAM ALEXANDER, Knt.,Lord Chief Baron.
Sir William GARROW, Knt.
Sir John HULLOCK, Knt.
Sir John VAUGHAN, Knt.

Sir James SCARLETT, Knt., Attorney-General.
Sir NICOLAS CONYNGHAM TINDAL, Knt., Solicitor-General.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL, Knt., Attorney-General.
Sir Nicolas CONYNGHAM TINDAL, Knt., Solicitor-General.

MEMORANDUM.

The point raised by the plea in Bozon v. Williams, reported page 475, was again brought before the Court on the 22nd June, 1829, on demurrer, in a cause, Jones v. Yates. Bozon v. Iilliams, and the cases there referred to, and also a case in which a demurrer had been allowed by the Vice-Chancellor, were cited. The Lord Chief Baron expressed his intention, before he decided the case, to confer with the Master of the Rolls and the Vice-Chancellor on the subject. On the 1st July following, his Lordship stated, that he had consulted both those learned Judges, and that, on their joint opinion, supported by his own view of the case, he should overrule the demurrer, but, in consequence of the previous decisions, without costs. The Lord Chief Baron also observed, that, if the Master of the Rolls and the Vice-Chancellor continued of the opinion then entertained by them, the rule would, for the future, be different in the Court of Chancery.

The decree in Spong v. Spong, Vol. 1, page 300, was reversed on appeal to the Ilouse of Lords.

ERRATA.

101,

Page 73, line 5, for “ ordersread “ order."

for "acknowledgment” read justification."
113, 14, for “ subpænu,read“ venire facias.
146, marginal note, for “ meaning the plaintiffread

meaning the defendantand vice versa.
333, 16, for defendant” read “ plaintiff.
372, 11, for “ proved vivá voce" read offered to prove

vivá
voce."
15 of margin, for alicnations ” read alienation."

TABLE

OF THE

NAMES OF CASES REPORTED

IN THIS VOLUME.

Page

[ocr errors]

A.

Page ADAMS v. Meredew - 417 Anonymous

- 101 Attorney-General v. Bell 431

v. Brooksbank

37

v. Wood 290 Attwood v. Small

72 Small v.

- 512

Bettridge, Stone v.

482 Bevan v. Jones, Gent., One, &c.

- 264 Blakewey v. Edwards - 559 Blandford, Beed v. - 278 Blunt, Rex v.

- 120 Bond, Gent., Cassen, Gent. v. 531 Bottrell v. Summers • 407 Bozon v. Williams

• 475 British Museum, (Trustees of), v. Payne

- 166 Brittain, Fanshawe v.- - 575 Brockbank, Bell v.

- 181 Brooks v. Till

- 276 Brooksbank, Attorney-Ge

neral v.

B.

37

Back, Ex parte

386 Balme and Others, (Assig

nees of Bankart and Ben-
son Bankrupts), v. Hut-
ton and Others

101 Bank of England, Governor

and Company of, Scott v. 327 Barrow v. Whitehead

2 Beed o. Blandford

278 Bell, Attorney-General v. 431 Bell v. Brockbank

181 Benson, Jackson and Lord Lonsdale v.

45

C.

Carpenter, Rendell v. - 484
Cassen, Gent. v. Bond,
Gent.

531 Clarke v. King

- 525 Coley v. Coley

. 44

« ForrigeFortsett »