| 1443.003 |
1443 |
Common Pleas |
Debt |
Dette |
Markham, John Sjt (for D)
Portyngton, John Sjt (for P)
Markham, John Sjt
Newton, Richard CJCP
Markham, John Sjt (mentioned)
Paston, William JCP
Portyngton, John Sjt (mentioned)
Ayscough, William JCP Ascue
Portyngton, John Sjt
Newton, Richard CJCP
Portyngton, John Sjt |
Wivel |
Walter, citizen of London |
|
|
|
Richard, predecessor Abbot |
Durford (Dorford), Abbey of |
|
Statham Ley 11
Fitzherbert Ley 13
Brooke Ley gager 46 |
cross-referenced in 1486.047 = Pasch. 1 Hen. 7, pl. 18, fol. 25a
Mich. 30 Edw. 3 |
|
| Walter Wivel Citizen de London porta brief de Det envers l' Abbe de Dorford. Et counta que Ric- |
21 |
Plaintiff counted that defendant abbot's predecessor bought 10 oxen from plaintiff for 5 marks, to the use of defendant abbot's house.
Defendant abbot pleaded not guilty (nothing owed) and waged his law.
Plaintiff replied that defendant abbot could not make his law of another's contract, that of defendant abbot's predecessor.
Defendant abbot rejoined that this action was conceived on both the sale and the coming to the use of defendant abbot's house, so defendant abbot did not want to plead otherwise.
Newton CJCP agreed with defendant abbot.
Paston JCP agreed with plaintiff.
Ayscough JCP argued that defendant abbot would not wage his law.
Plaintiff waived the demurrer for the reason, and counted anew that defendant abbot's predecessor bought 10 oxen from plaintiff for 10 marks to the use of defendant abbot's house and that his predecessor acknowledged himself bound to plaintiff to pay the 10 marks.
Newton CJCP said that the matter was not amended by the new count, because the predecessor's deed did not charge the house nor defendant abbot as successor, so now the declaration was double.
Defendant did not answer.
Plaintiff imparled.
Never afterwards was anything done in this matter, but solely the entry of the count (declaration). |
| Sjt Portyngton (for P): l' Abbe (que ore est) ne prive al' contract: eins Richard son predecessor |
|
Premonstratensian Abbey of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. John the Baptist at Durford, Sussex. |
plaintiff: defendant abbot's predecessor bought from plaintiff at a certain day and place 10 oxen (boefs) for 5 marks (= 3 pounds 6 shillings 8 pence, or 6 shillings 8 pence per ox), which came to the use of the House of Durford; new count by Sjt Portyngton: Richard, defendant abbot's predecessor, bought from plaintiff 10 oxen for 10 marks (= 6 pounds 13 shillings 4 pence, or 13 shillings 4 pence per ox), which came to the use of the House of Durford, and that abbot predecessor Richard by the deed that (plaintiff) showed forth acknowledged himself to be held to plaintiff in the said 10 marks to pay at a certain day
Sjt Portyngton (for P): the reason (cause) that an action of Debt cannot be maintained against executors on a loan (apprompte) made by their testator is, becaue they cannot wage their law of another's contract
Ayscough JCP: if I bring an action of Debt and declare how one who was defendant's servant bought certain goods from me for the use of his master, and how they (goods) came to the use of defendant who was his master, in this case the defendant will not wage his law; and this Mich. 30 Edw. 3, but against (this) if I made a sale by the hands of my servant, the defendant can wage his law, because it is in effect only my own sale; and in an action of Account where the receipt is alleged by another's hands (not defendant), the defendant will not wage his law |
|
|
Statham Ley 11, a long entry, mentioned purchase of certain provisions, identified Sjt Portyngton as defendant abbot's counsel and Sjt Yelverton as plaintiff's counsel, who replied that there could not be (wager of law) because it is on another's contract; Newton CJCP: one will wage his law on another's contract, because in Debt against me on a contract made by my wife before coverture I will wage my law; Sjt Portyngton said that they (husband and wife) are only one person (ils sont que un meme persone); and the opinion was that he (defendant abbot) would have his law; and it was said in the same plea, that where one brought a writ of Debt, and declared that the defendant had been at the inn (a l ostelle) with him, paying so much by the week for his board (paiant taunt per le sepmaigne pur sa table) etc., the defendant would not have his law, etc.; but yet the law was the other way, etc.
Fitzherbert Ley 13 said that the Justices agreed that he (defendant abbot) should have his law
Brooke Ley gager 46 said that the Justices were in doubt |
|
Citizen
Abbot
Count
Predecessor
Buying (achata)
Use (use)
House of Religion
Not Guilty
Nothing Owed
Rien Luy Doit
Wager of Law
Issue
Case
Understanding
Appearance
Privity
Contract
Privity of Contract
Award of Law
Cause
Action
Cause of Action
Maintenance of Action
Executor
Loan (apprompte)
Testator
Conception
Pleading
Goods
Strength
Strong Case
Proof
Thinking
Declaration
Servant
Certainty
Master
Sale
Hand
Effect
Account
Receipt
Allegation
Another's Hand
Waiver
Demurrer
Cause
New Count
Deed
Showing
Acknowledgement
Payment
Day
Matter
Amendment
Sole Deed
Charge
Successor
Substance
Addition
Simple Obligation
Unconditional Obligation
Double Declaration
Double Plea
Answer
Imparlment
Note
Entry |
|
