| 1469.120 |
1469 |
Common Pleas |
(Debt) |
Residuum d' estoppel |
| Mich. |
9 |
Edw. 4 |
31 |
44b-45a |
Jenney, William Sjt Genney (for P)
Danby, Robert CJCP
Choke, Richard JCP
Littleton, Thomas JCP
Jenney, William Sjt Genney
Littleton, Thomas JCP
Moyle, Walter JCP Moile
Jenney, William Sjt Genney
Catesby, John Sjt (for D)
Nedeham, John CP Nedham
|
(Felding) |
(R.) |
|
|
|
S., J., of London, gentleman, hypothetical defendant
London, Sheriffs of
Middlesex, Sheriff of
S., J., of London in Middlesex, yeoman, hypothetical defendant
S., J., of Lincoln, gentleman, hypothetical defendant
S., J., of Derby, defendant
Norfolk, Sheriff of
Norwich, Sheriff of |
London (Londoniis), City of and county of
London, a place in Middlesex
Middlesex, county of
Dale, hypothetical vill
Lincoln (Lincolne), City of and county of
York (Everwike)
Norwich (Norwiche)
Norfolk, County of |
|
| |
Prior proceedings 1469.087 = Trin. 9 Edw. 4, pl. 44, fol. 29a-30b and 1469.090 = Mich. 9 Edw. 4, pl. 1, fol. 31a
Cross-referenced in 1469.067 = Trin. 9 Edw. 4, pl. 27, fol. 23b
5 Edw. 4, fol. 107 (Long Quinto)
33 Hen. 6, fol. 10
34 Hen. 6, fol. 50 (twice)
22 Hen. 6, fol. 59
10 Hen. 6, fol. 26
8 Hen. 6, fol. 16 |
|
| Pluis d' estoppel' oblig' de Pakenham. @ Genney. Il semble que serra estoppe, car il serra entend' |
50 |
Plaintiff argued that defendant should be estopped (from pleading that defendant was not of the city by which defendant was named in the obligation).
Long discussion of the pleading.
Then defendant took a day by imparlment until Hil. 1470, by defendant's attorney, 'saving his advantages' (salvis sibi avantagiis).
But because defendant had made attorney defendant could not have this plea. |
Sjt Catesby (for D): Coment que il appiert a vous come Judges que London est un Cite, uncore il appiert a vous que il ne sont plusors villes nosme London, car poet estree que sont divers villes que ont tiel nosme, issint l' obligation serra pris indiferenter nosme, ore quant nous avomus monstre nostre especial matter, &c.
Nedeham JCP: Il serra entende solonnque le verity del matter icy |
Sjt Jenney (for P): it seems that he (defendant) will be estopped, because it will be understood when the obligation is (named defendant) 'of London', that this is the City, etc. and if I will bring an action against one J.S. of London, gentleman, and he (defendant) makes a warrant of attorney by this name, will he (defendant) be received at another day to plead (a dire) that he was of (a place also called) London in the county of Middlesex, denying that he (defendant) was ever of the City (of) London?, I say not, because he (defendant) affirmed that he was of London, which will be understood the City, etc.
Danby CJCP (in agreement): Sir, it was agreed at the last day, that if it had been written of 'Londoniis' (in Latin), etc., that he (defendant) will be estopped, Sir, it is all the same (tout un), because the usual writing of 'London' is to write 'London', so it will be understood (pris) according to the common understanding (common entent) and usage, etc.
Choke JCP (in agreement): in writs here they say Sheriffs of London (Vicecomitibus London), this will be understood 'Londoniarum', etc.; and Sir, there is a distinction between this cse and where a vill stretches (estrech) into two counties, because here when he (defendant) said 'of London' generally, this will be understood (to mean) the City, and so when one is sued by the name of J.S. of London, gentleman, he (plaintiff) need not say in which county London is, because it is understood (to mean) of London, which is a county in itself, but if he was named of another vill such as Dale, and in which (obligation or writ) there is no county, etc. he (plaintiff) ought to show in which county Dale is, so in all cases where one speaks of London generally, he is understood (to mean) the City, and if the obligation had been 'Hugh Pakenham, late of the city of London, etc. will he (defendant) be received to plead as he has pleaded?, I say he would not, and no more here, etc.; but if a writ had been brought, etc., sent to the sheriff of Middlesex, that is, Praecipe J.S. of London, in your county, yeoman, there we could understand that there was such a vill (of London) in the county of Middlesex, because it is specially shown, etc. but if part of a vill is in one county by itself, and the rest in another county, as Lincoln, because part of this is in a county by itself, and part in the county of Lincoln, in this case if one be obliged by the name of J.S. of Lincoln, gentleman, and is impleaded thus, he (defendant) can well plead (dire) that he was of Lincoln, in the county of Lincoln, denying thathe was of Lincoln City, because this is consistent with the obligation, etc., because it is all one vill, etc.; and thus it is of York and Norwich; and it is the same law where the vill extends into different counties, so, etc.
Littleton JCP: your case makes no distinction (diversitie), when one vill stretches into two counties, and when there are two vills of one same name, because if you name me 'of Lincoln', I can plead (dire) that there is a vill named Lincoln in the county of Lincoln, at which I reside (sue demurrant), denying that I was residing (demurrant) at Lincoln the City, because it is consistent with (estoit) and (in) accord with the obligation, and so here if the matter were thus in fact that there is such a London (in Middlesex), at which he was residing, there is no reason why he will be estopped (conclude, precluded, foreclosed) from pleading (adire) that he was not of the City, etc. because this does not contradict the obligation, and it will be understood of such matter in fact according to the truth of the matter, but when the writ issues out of here (Common Pleas) to the Sheriff of London there it is understood that he is of the City, which is a county by itself, because ech county appears to us (as a matter) of record; and if one be obliged to me by the name of J.S. of Derby, this will be understood to mean Derby, but if I name him 'of Derbia', he (defendant) can plead that there is a vill named Derby, at which he was residing, denying that he resided at 'Derbia', beause this plea does not contradict the obligation, and if an obligation be brought dated at London, the plaintiff can count that the deed was made at London in the county of Middlesex, etc. so, etc.
which Nedeham JCP and Moyle JCP agreed
Sjt Jenney (for P): if I am obliged to pay 100 pounds at London, and there are different Londons, will this not be paid at the City?, as if to say, yes, etc.
LIttleton JCP and Moyle JCP: you can choose at which of them (which London) you want (to pay), etc.
Sjt Jenney (for P): I saw this adjudged here that in Trespass supposed to be committed at Norwich in the county of Norfolk, the defendant pleaded a release made at Norwich, and on this a Venire facias (was) awarded to the Sheriff of Norfolk, and this was tried, and it was adjudged that all that was done was void, because when he (defendant) said that the deed (of release) was made at Norwich, the Venire facias ought to have been awarded to the Sheriff of Norwich, etc. (perhaps 1448.026 = Mich. 27 Hen. 6, pl. 26 fol. 4a)
Sjt Catesby (for D): even if it appears to you (the Court) as judges that London is a City, yet it appears to you (the Court) that there are several vills named London, because it could be that there are different vills that have such a name, so the obligation will be understood (pris) to name indifferently, now when we have shown our special matter, etc.
Nedeham JCP: it will be understood according to the truth of the matter here, in thie case that Sjt Jenney (for D) put of the warrant of attorney he made the name according to the supposition of the writ, andby the writ it will be supposed (to refer to) the City, etc. but it is otherwise here |
|
|
1469.120 = Mich. 9 Edw. 4, pl. 31, fol. 44b-45a |
|
Estoppel
Obligation
Seeming
Understanding (entende)
City
Action
Gentleman
Name
Warrant
Attorney
Making Warrant
Warrant Of Attorney
Receipt
Day
County
Denial
Sans Ceo
Affirmation
Ad Idem
Agreement
Last Day
Writing (escript)
Londoniis
Usual
Usual Writing
Common Understanding
Usage
Common Usage
Sheriff
Londoniarum
Distinction (diversity)
Case
Vill
Stretch (estretch)
Generally
Speaking Generally
suit
Need (besoigne)
Separate (en luy mesme)
Showing
Speaking (parle)
Civitate
Plea
Pleading
Sending
Praecipe
Yeoman
Special Showing
Parcel
Rest (remnant)
Impleading
Stand
Consistency (estoit)
Extension
Extending
Same Name
Residing (demurrant)
Accord
Agreement
Matter
In Fact
Reason
Unreasonable
Reasonableness
Preclusion (conclude)
Foreclosure
Conclusion
Contrary
Contradiction (contrariant)
Matter In Fact
Truth (verity)
Truth Of The Matter
Issuance
Appearance
Of Record
Derbia
Date
Bearing Date
Apud
Count
Making Deed
Agreement (concessit)
Payment
Quasi Diceret
Choice (eslier)
Sight (veia)
Adjudging
Trespass
Supposition
Release
Venire Facias
Award
Trial
Voidance
Void Process
Judge
Indifference
Equality (indifferenter)
Special Matter
Otherwise
Imparlment
Term
Saving
Advantage
Saving His Advantages
Salvis Sibi Avantagiis
Making Attorney |
|
