| 1482.073 |
1482 |
Common Pleas |
Debt on an obligation |
Det |
Starkey, Humfrey Sjt (for P)
Choke, Richard JCP
all the Justices of CP
Bryan, Thomas CJCP Brian
Starkey, Humfrey Sjt
all the Justices |
|
|
|
|
|
B. |
Walton'
East Walton
West Walton
B., two hypothetical vills of the same name |
|
| Brooke Continuance 80 (not 79), Estopell 198 (not 194), Garrauntie datturney 43 |
Later proceeding? 1482.078 = Pasch. 22 Edw. 4, pl. 10, fol. 2b-3a
5 Edw. 4, fol. 6
21 Edw. 4, fol. 75
12 Hen. 6, fol. 6
3 Hen. 6, fol. 17
9 Edw. 4, fol. 38
8 Hen. 5, fol. 8
21 Edw. 4, fol. 89 (?) |
|
| Brief de Det fuit port sur un obligacion, & le defendant per son attorney emparla tanques a cel terme, |
14 |
Defendant by his attorney imparled until this Term.
At this time, defendant appeared and pleaded that (prayed that the writ would abate, because) this action was brought against defendant named as of a vill, that there were in the same county two vills of that name, one east and one west, and so neither without addition, and plaintiff had brought this action against defendant by the one name only.
Plaintiff replied that there was a time that defendant's attorney had appeared by the same name (in plaintiff's writ) and imparled to the action, in which case defendant had affirmed the writ good by the same name (in the writ).
Choke JCP said that defendant would have the plea.
This was the opinion of all the Justices.
Bryan CJCP asked plaintiff whether in the obligation on which plaintiff's action was commenced defendant was named in the same way as in plaintiff's writ.
Plaintiff said that the obligation did name defendant in the same way.
All the Justices agreed (that defendant's plea was not good), and awarded that defendant would answer to the obligation. |
Choke JCP: it seems that the defendant will have the plea, and it is not the same as if Capias was awarded against one of B. and he appears by Reddidit se (render him), and has Supersedeas (a stay) to the sheriff by the same name, in this case if he (defendant) would plead that there are two B.'s within (the same county, and neither without addition), it (the writ) will not be amended, because it appears by the record that he has affirmed (the writ) by the same name, but imparlment (emparlance) of his (defendant's) attorney by the name of Walton does not contradict (n' est contrariant) (defendant's later plea) that there are two Waltons
if it (the same name as in plaintiff's writ) had not been in on the obligation, he (defendant) could have pleaded (the misnomer) in abatement of the writ well enough notwithstanding the imparlment
which note |
|
|
1482.073 = Pasch. 22 Edw. 4, pl. 5, fol. 1b |
|
Obligation
Attorney
By Attorney
Imparlment
Term
Time
Appearance
Abatement
Action
County
Addition
Without Addition
Tantum
Solely
Judgment
Name
Case
Affirmation
Affirmation Of Writ
Good Writ
Seeming
Plea
Dissimilarity
Similarity
Capias
Award
Reddidit Se
Render
Supersedeas
Stay
Sheriff
Same Name
Pleding
Amendment
Record
By Record
Appearance By Record
Affirmance
Inconsistency
Contradiction
Consistency
Opinion
Demand
Commencement
Agreement
Award
Answer
Pleading In Abatement
Sufficiency (assets)
Well Enough
Notwithstanding
(Imparlance)
Note |
|
