A Treatise of Trover and Conversion: Or the Law of Factions on the Case for Torts and Wrongs : Wherein All the Cases Concerning Such Actions are Digested Under Their Proper Heads ... : to which is Added Several Select Precedents of Declarations and Pleas in Such Actions and References to All that are Extant in the Books of EntriesEliz. Nutt and R. Gosling (assigns of E. Sayer), 1721 - 402 頁 |
常見字詞
abfque Action lies Action of Trover adjudged adtunc affigned againſt alfo alledged allocatur altho Anglice anno anſwered apud Arreft of Judgment Attorn Baron and Feme becauſe Boick brought Cafe lies Caufe Cauſe Chief Juftice Common Bench Confpiracy County Court Cuftom Damages dant Defendant pleaded Defendant's Demurrer Detinue doth Eliz Entr Error exprefs faid falfo fame Felony Feme fendant fhall fhew fhould Fieri Facias firft fold fome fuch fufficient fuit fuper fuppofed Guilty pleaded habuit hath held himſelf Horfe Houfe Houſe ibidem Iffue inde Indictment ipfius Jurifdiction Jury malitiofe Matter mefs ment moved in Arreft Nufance otherwife Perfon Plaintiff Plea pleaded Not Guilty poffeffed Poffeffion poftea præd profecute pzed Queftion quod Reaſon refolved Regis revera Simile Telv thereof theſe Things thofe tiff tion Tithes Traverfe Trefpafs Trover and Converfion Trover lies unto uſed Verdict verfus Wherefore whereupon Words Writ
熱門章節
第 66 頁 - Cur., that goods delivered to any person exercising a public trade or employment to be carried, wrought or managed in the way of his trade or employ, are for that time under a legal protection, and privileged from distress for rent...
第 63 頁 - Stringefelfaw's case (6), — the main difference being, that in the one the bankrupt commissioners claimed against the extent upon the statute staple, and in the other, the crown, — the Court expressly distinguished it from the case in Dyer, by saying, " for there, although the goods were extended, yet they were not delivered to the conuzee, and the writ was not returned, and the writ of privilege was for debt due to the king, wherein the king hath his prerogative by the common law.
第 86 頁 - As, if eftovers were granted unto him, to be taken in a great wood, and the owner of the wood cuts down fome of the wood, the grantee cannot take that which is cut down ; but he...
第 379 頁 - In cases of loss, either the innkeeper or the guest must be the sufferer; and the common law furnishes the solution of the question, on which of them it should properly fall. In the case of Cross v. Andrews, the rule was tersely stated by the court. "The defendant, if he will keep an inn, ought, at his peril, to keep safely his guests
第 310 頁 - It was agreed by all the justices that if two men be owners of two parcels of land adjoining, and one of them doth build a house upon his land, and makes windows and lights looking into the other's...
第 86 頁 - ... of the wood, the vendee cannot take that which is cut down; but he ought to make his grant good out of that which is growing. As...
第 350 頁 - A clothier of Gloucestershire sold very good cloth ; so that, in London, if they saw any cloth of his mark, they would buy it without searching thereof ; and another, who made ill cloth, put his mark upon it without his privity ; and an action upon the case was brought by him who bought the cloth for this deceit, and adjudged maintainable.
第 174 頁 - ... although he be a stranger to the record, whereby the plaintiffs were barred, yet he is privy to the trespass ; wherefore he well may plead it, and take advantage thereof, and hereto the other justices agreed, that if it be intended for one same cause, that he well might take advantage thereof.
第 172 頁 - Court fhall fo intend it) that it was given only for the taking and driving of them, and that the Plaintiff had them again ; and not in Lieu of the Value of them ; for if it...
第 342 頁 - Butterfield v. Forrester (1809) afford no indication that either of those judges felt at the time that he was charting new paths for law." Contributory negligence was adopted much earlier as a part of the common law. In Bayly v. Merrell, Cro.Jac. 386, 79 Eng.Rep. 331 (1606), the Court explicated, "[I]f he doubted of the weight thereof, he might have weighed it; and was not bound to give credence to another's speech; and being his own negligence, he is without remedy.