| 1367.015 |
1367 |
Common Pleas |
Debt |
Det
Accompt
Grants |
Chelre, Edmund de Sjt (for D)
Belknap, Robert Sjt (for P)
Chelre, Edmund de Sjt
Belknap, Robert Sjt
Chelre, Edmund de Sjt Cherlington
Cavendish, John de Sjt Caidish (for P)
Thorp, Robert de CJCP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
D., manor of
S., manor of |
|
Fitzherbert Dett 120
Brooke Accompt 11
Brooke Dette 29
Brooke Grauntes (not Grants) 15
Statham Accompt 3 (?)
Statham Dette 6
|
|
|
| En Brief de Dett, le Plaintiff counta que le defendaunt devoit a luy certeins petits dets, des queux il |
20 |
| In a writ of Debt, the plaintiff counted that the defendant owed him certain small debts, for which he had accounted between them, so that all amounted to 40 pounds, and also that he had loaned him 20 pounds to pay etc., and that he had frequently demanded the 40 pounds etc. The defendant fully acknowledged that he had accounted as the plaintiff had said, and that the plaintiff had loaned him 20 pounds, and he said that an accord was made between them by the deed that was here, that the plaintiff should levy the said money (deniers) from the defendant's manors of D. and S., and the defendant said that the plaintiff had levied the money by force of the indenture; judgment if the plaintiff should have an action. The plaintiff said that the indenture proved that the defendant was bound in the said money (deniers), but it did not prove that he was paid, so that he prayed his debt. The defendant asserted that the indenture said that the plaintiff could levy the money from the defendant's manors, and the defendant had said from outside that the plaintiff had levied the money. The plaintiff said that he did not have authority to levy the debt by force of the deed, because the indenture was an obligation, and notwithstanding that the defendant gave the plaintiff permission to levy this from his goods, nevertheless it was always in action, because if the defendant were bound to the plaintiff in a certain debt, and then granted that he would levy the money from the defendant's goods and chattels, this was not of force, because the plaintiff could not levy the money any more. Therefore the defendant said as before, and thus he did not owe the plaintiff anything. The plaintiff said that the defendant would not be admitted (naviendres) to that, because he had acknowledged the indebtedness, and the plaintiff understood that if one brought a writ of Debt against a man, and he said that he had paid him, and thus owed him nothing, this was not a plea without an acquittance. Thorp CJCP said that the plaintiff said the truth, if he put forward an obligation of the debt, but if the plaintiff counted of a contract without an obligation, as he did here, it was a good plea etc. Query if it was an issue that the plaintiff had agreed to the assignment, and thus owed him nothing. |
|
