HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0644 and id is 1 raw text is: Inconvenience, if he could not set out the very Time of the Purchase of the Writ; and
the Relation of the Teste is only to prevent Fraud, and not justify a Tort. The Court
further held, that the Plaintiff in this Case had no Remedy for his Debt, by Reason of the
Statute of Limitations, unless given him by this Fiction in Law; and it would not be
right for the Court to give Remedy by Fiction, where it is expresly prohibited by the
Statute. Adjornatur.
42.-PITMAN ver. HARDY. Mich. 6 Geo. II. [1732]. B, R.
Debt brought on a Warrant of Attorney to confess Judgment.
The Defendant gave a Warrant of Attorney to confess a Judgment, Pasch. 5 Geo.
2, but Judgment was not entered up that Term; afterwards the Plaintiff brought an
Action of Debt, and declared upon this Warrant of Attorney; to which the Defendant
demurred. Mr. G. Counsel insisted, that the Defendant, by his Warrant of Attorney,
had confessed the Debt.
The Court said, they never heard of an Action being brought upon a Warrant of
Attorney ; that the Judgment not being entred within the Time limited, the Authority
was determined; nor can the Warrant of Attorney be any Acknowledgment of a Debt;
and so Judgment for the Defendant per totam Cur'.
43.-WILKINSON versus DRAPER. Mich. 6 Geo. II. [1732]. B. R.
Verdict set aside, because the Pleadings which were special, were not entred with the
Clerk of the Papers.
Mr. F. Counsel moved to set aside a Verdict, because there was a special Plea and
Replication, and no Entry was made thereof with the Clerk of the Papers, which is irregu-
lar and contrary to Practice. Mr. S. Counsel : The Defendant should have objected
to this in proper Time, but after Verdict it is too late to take Advantage of it.
But the Court said they would not suffer the Officer to be cheated of his Fees ; and so
set aside the Verdict, and obliged the Parties to go back to the first Fault.
[97] 44.-DANIEL ver. PURBECK. Mich. 6 Geo. II. [1732]. B. R.
Costs for not Countermanding a Notice of Trial in Time.
Mr. S. Counsel : It is an established Rule in this Court, that where Notice of Trial
is countermanded, the Countermand to save Costs must be two Days before, &c., in a Town-
Cause, and four Days in a Country Cause. Notice of Trial was given in this Case for
the 19th of August at Warwick, and no Countermand till the Sixteenth; he therefore
moved, that the Defendant might have his Costs ; there is no Respect to be paid to the
Circumstances of the Case, but the Rule is general, and must be pursued; and the
Court ordered accordingly, that the Defendant should have Costs.
45.-DANIEL versus PuRKs. Mich. 6 Geo. I. [1732]. B. R.
Motion for a new Writ of Inquiry, the Jury having found Damages for the Defendant.
Action by the Plaintiff, who was an Attorney, for his Fees; pending which the
Parties came to an Agreement, that, upon Payment of so much Money by the Defen-
dant, Proceedings should be stayed. The Defendant paid the Money, and took a Dis-
charge from the Plaintiff ; notwithstanding which the Plaintiff afterwards proceeded
to Judgment, and gave the Defendant Notice of executing a Writ of Inquiry; a Writ
of Inquiry was executed accordingly, and the Jury, upon the Circumstances of the
Case, gave one Penny Damages for the Defendant.
Mr. P. Counsel moved for a new Writ of Inquiry; upon Issue joined the Jury may
find for the Plaintiff or Defendant, at their Discretion; but after Judgment they are
only to inquire into the Quantum of the Damages the Plaintiff has sustained, and cannot
give Damages against him; and of this Opinion was the Court, and therefore thought
a new Writ ought to go.
510
PITMAN V. HARDY
W. KEL. 97.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0644&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)