Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  















Constitutional - From: 1200 To: 1799

This page lists 48 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
Case XI. 11 H 8 Keyleway, 199 Office, Repugnancy, Faits [1220] EngR 88; (1220-1623) Jenk 197; (1220) 145 ER 133 (B)
1220


Constitutional
Tenant in tail by kniight's service dies, his heir under, age ; the donor tenders him marriage ; he refuses, arid marries elsewhere, being still within age ; he dies (having issue) within age in ward ; the issue also dies having issue : the donor shall have the double value for one, and the single value for the other ; for the statute of West. 1, being a special statute concerning wards, is not repealed by West 2, which is another special statute. The words deed and feoffment, in the statute of West. 2 (which enacts that by them a tenant in tail shall not prejudice the issue in tail) are not to be understood of the right of the superior lord. Tenant in tail, the remainder in fee, he cesses for two years; the land shall be recovered against tenant in tail : F. N. B: 20, for this reason, viz. the recovery of the land for the cesser per biennium is given by a special statute.
A special statute does not derogate from a special statute, without express words of abrogation.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Case XCI 11 H 6, 32 7 Co 1, Calvin's Case 11 E 3 Fitz Br 473 24 E 3, 65 Roigne [1220] EngR 82; (1220-1623) Jenk 69; (1220) 145 ER 70 (A)
1220


Family, Constitutional
Katherine Queen of England, after the death of K. H, 5 married Owen Tudor knight, descended from the royal stem of the pririces of Wales, by whom she had two sons and a claughter ; during their marriage she sued without her husband by the name of Queen of Eriglarid (She was the daughter of (Charles, King of France.)
Resolved by all the judges, that though a Queen marries a private man, she remains Queen, and a person exempt to sue, or be sued as a feme sole ; and that she is a person capable to purchuse land without her husband, with a power to dispose of it.
A private statute was made the 6 H. 6 that it shoukl not be lawful for a Queen Dowager to marry any persori without the King's licence.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Case XXXV 23 El Dyer, 275, 177 14 El Cap 3 13 El Cap 3 Dyer, 128 Licence Dyer, 62 Forfeiture, Patents, Authority, Revocation 1 And 95 Moor 109 Poph 18 7 Co 11 B Dyer, 276 1 Leon 9, 10 Moor 779 4 Leon 140 2 Roll Rep 13 [1220] EngR 341; (1220-1623) Jenk 246; (1220) 145 ER 174 (A)
1220


Intellectual Property, Constitutional
The King licenses A. to go beyond sea for a certain time ; after this time is expired, A. is commanded under. the privy seal, upon his allegance to return into England ; he does not obey : his goods, chattels and lands are seisetl into thc King's hands for this contempt : resolved by all the judges of England, that if A. in this case ; has a manor where there are copyholds ; and timber fit to be felled each season that the King may grant the copyhold, and sell the timber so fit to be felled. If the King makes that the two stewards to keep courts there : ne of them by himself, although with the consent of the other, can neither keep courts nor grant copies ; for they have a joint power. In this case, the King's grant, quanidiu in manibus nostris fore contigerit, is good ; and such patentee may keep courts in his own name, grant copies ; and sell seasonable timber.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Case XLIII 2 H 7, 6 Patents, Pardons, Non Obstante [1220] EngR 267; (1220-1623) Jenk 173; (1220) 145 ER 113 (E)
1220


Constitutional
In cases of the King’s patents with non obstante for the shrievalty of any county, in fee, tail, or for life ; or for the exportation of wool, or for homicide ; although there are statutes which ordain such patents to be void, yet, with a clause of non obstante they are good, and to be allowed : and although the statutes say that such patents shall be void, although they have a clause with non obstante ; yet a patent of such things with words of non obstante any clause derogating from the non obstante will make the patent good. The reason of the law is, the King, by his royalty is trusted with the government, pardons and publick business: particular cases may happen which deserve remission, upon consideration of circumstances.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Case XLIX 5 and 6 E6 [1220] EngR 550; 6 E 6 1 Cr 275 3 Mar Dyer, 135 Jurisdiction, Star chamber, Parliament 11 Co 64 b Palm 542 1 Co 25 a Plow 207 10 Co 77; (1220-1623) Jenk 212; (1220) 145 ER 144 (C)
1220


Magistrates, Constitutional
An Act of Parliament not printed, ordains, that the quarter-sessions to be held for the county of Anglesey, shall he held at Beaumarrice in that county, and not elsewhere ; indictments of felony were found at Newburgh in the said county against several persons at a quarter-sessions held there after the said act; the justices of peace proceeded to take the said indictment although the said act was shewed to them, exemplified under the great seal, before the indictments were found : resolved for law, by all the judges, that these indictnents were void; by reason of the said negative words : and this offence being complained of in the Star-chamber, every one of those justices of peace was fined 5l. Note the moderation of that age in settirig fines in that court. The 25 H. 8, cap. 21, has negative words, that dispensations for benefices shall be granted by the Archibishop of Canterbury, and not otherwise : yet the King’s power is not excluded ; for, by those negative words, it is only intended to exclude all papal dispensations.
Affirmative words in a statute do not take away the common law. The justices of peace may hold their quarter-sessions where they think fit in the county, if they are not restrained as above.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Case VI 2 H 8 9 Co 118 H Dally, 25, Pl 8 11 Co 59 A B Keyleway, 159, 204 Forcible Entry, Restitution Commissioners De Oyer And Terminer, Bank Le Roy [1220] EngR 269; (1220-1623) Jenk 197; (1220) 145 ER 132 (B)
1220


Land, Constitutional
Commissioners of oyer and terminer have no power to exclude upon the statute of forcible entry : for the statute of 8 H 6, cap. 3, which provides an enquiry and restitutiori in this case, appropriates it to the justices of peace : but the judges of the King’s Bench are wittin the statute ; for the King sits there, and where the King sits est plenitudo potestatis. Proprietates verborum tuendae sunt.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Stradling v Morgan (1560) 1 Plow 199
1560


Constitutional
There is a wide common sense principle of the construction of statutes by which courts will imply qualifications into the literal meaning of wide and general words in order to prevent them from having some unreasonable consequence which it is considered that Parliament could not have intended.
1 Citers


 
Case of the Duchy of Lancaster (1561) 1 Plow 213
1561


Land, Constitutional
Queen Elizabeth I wished to know whether a lease granted by Edward VI of some land within the Duchy while under the age of 21 ("during his nonage") was voidable. Held: It was not voidable. The king's natural body was inseparable from his body politic (a corporation sole), which was never under age. Seisin can only pass to the Crown as a matter of record. Furthermore, seisin could not therefore pass to the Crown either by livery of seisin or by the disseisin of a subject's land by a Crown servant.
1 Citers


 
The Case of Swans [1572] EngR 403; (1572-1616) 7 Co Rep 15; (1572) 77 ER 435
1572


Animals, Constitutional
A prescription to have all wild swans, which are ferae naturae and not marked, building their nests, breeding, and frequenting within a particular creek, is not good.
All white swans not marked, having gained their natural liberty, and swimming in an open and common river, may be seised to the King's use by his prerogative.
A swan is a Royal fowl, and whales and sturgeons are Royal fish.
Every one who hath swans within his private waters hath a property in them.
A man may prescribe to have a game of swans within his manor, and may prescribe that his mans may swim within the manor of another.
A swan may be an estray.
Cygnets belong equally to the owner of the cock and the owner of the hen, and shall be divided betwixt them.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Honours And Dignities, Creation of Baronets, and Co [1572] EngR 194; (1572-1616) 12 Co Rep 81; (1572) 77 ER 1359 (A)
1572


Constitutional

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Prohibitions Del Roy; The Case De Modo Decimandi,; CCP 1572 - [1572] EngR 303; (1572-1616) 12 Co Rep 63; (1572) 77 ER 1342; [1572] EngR 389; (1572-1616) 13 Co Rep 37; (1572) 77 ER 1448

 
 The Case of Monopolies; Darcy v Allein; 1572 - [1572] EngR 398; (1572-1616) 11 Co Rep 84; (1572) 77 ER 1260; (1602) Noy 173; (1602) Moore KB 671; (1602) 1 Web Pat Cas 1; (1602) 74 ER 1131

 
 Prohibitions; 1572 - [1572] EngR 302; (1572-1616) 13 Co Rep 30; (1572) 77 ER 1440
 
Weare v Adamson [1583] Sav 56; (1583) 123 ER 1010
1583


Litigation Practice, Constitutional
An information was laid in the name of the Queen. The defendant requested a non-suit saying that she had not appeared at court. Held. The objection failed. The Queen was deemed 'always present' in court.


 
 Heydon's Case; 1584 - (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a; [1584] EWHC Exch J36; 76 ER 637; Pasch 26 Eliz; 20 Eliz Rot 140
 
The Case of Heresy (1601) 12 Co Rep 56; 77 ER 1335
1601


Constitutional

1 Citers



 
 Calvin's case; 1606 - (1608) Co Rep 1a; 77 ER 377

 
 The Prince's Case; ChD 11-Jan-1606 - (1606) 8 Co Rep 1A; 77 ER 481; [1606] EWHC Ch J6

 
 Prohibitions, Case of; Prohibitions del Roy; KBD 1-Nov-1607 - [1607] EWHC KB J23

 
 The Case of the Royal Fishery of the Banne; 1610 - [1610] Dav 149
 
Proclamations, Case of [1610] EWHC KB J22; (1611) 12 Co Rep 74; 77 ER 1352
1 Nov 1610
KBD
Sir Edward Coke CJ
Constitutional
The King, as the executive government, sought to govern by making proclamations. Held: The monarch had no power to legislate domestically in his own right.
Sir Edward Coke CJ said: "The King by his proclamation or other ways cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm . . true it is that every precedent hath a commencement; but when authority and precedent is wanting, there is need of great consideration, before that any thing of novelty shall be established, and to provide that this be not against the law of the land: for I said, that the King cannot change any part of the common law, nor create any offence by his proclamation, which was not an offence before, without Parliament. "
and "In the same term it was resolved by the two Chief Justices, Chief Baron and Baron Altham, upon conference betwixt the Lords of the Privy Council and them, that the King by his proclamation cannot create any offence which was not an offence before, for then he may alter the law of the land by his proclamation in a high point . . the law of England is divided into three parts, common law, statute law and custom, but the King's proclamation is none of them . . Also it was resolved, that the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
The King and Another v Countess of Arundel and Another [1616] EWHC Ch J11; (1617) Hobart 109; (1616) 80 ER 258; [1572] EngR 17; (1572-1616) 6 Co Rep 14; (1572) 77 ER 273
22 May 1616
CCP
Coke LJ, Sir Henry Hobart
Land, Constitutional

[ Bailii ] - [ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Countess of Arundel (1617) Hobart 109
1617


Constitutional
As regards a Bill in Parliament, the pronouncement of the words enacting it "carry its death's wound in itself."
1 Citers


 
Darnel's Case (1627) 3 St Tr 1; 59 (KB 1627
1627

Hyde CJ
Constitutional
Charles I demanded that Darnel and at least four others lend him money. Upon their refusal, they were imprisoned. The court refused to order the release of nobles who were being detained under executive warrant by the special command of Charles I, who asserted absolute authority over the parliament (based on the doctrine of divine right).
Hyde CJ said: "Whether the commitment be by the King or others, this Court is a place where the King doth sit in person, and we have power to examine it, and if it appears that any man hath injury or wrong by his imprisonment, we have power to deliver and discharge him, if otherwise, he is to be remanded by us to prison."

 
Rex v Eliot, Hollis and Valentine (1629) 3 St Tr 294
1629


Crime, Constitutional
Proceedings were taken in the King's Bench against three members of the House of Commons, who were charged with seditious speeches, contempt of the King (Charles I) in resisting the adjournment of the House and with conspiracy to keep the Speaker in the chair by force. All pleaded to the jurisdiction. The plea nihil dicit meant that conviction would be inevitable, but if they defended themselves at all, their contention that Parliament was the only body with jurisdiction over these matters would be totally undermined. Eliot's self-acknowledged dilemma was that if he did not submit he would incur the censure of the Court, but if he did, his act would be considered "a prejudice to posterity" and "a danger to Parliament". So he would be silent, just because his duty was to Parliament. Held: Members had no privilege to speak seditiously or behave in a disorderly manner.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Rex v Eliot, Holles and Valentine (1629) 3 St Tr 293
1629


Constitutional, Crime
Parliamentary privilege did not protect the maker against seditious comments made in the Chamber of the House.
1 Citers


 
- And The Lord Moone [1658] EngR 18; (1658) Sty 118; (1658) 82 ER 576 (B)
1658


Litigation Practice, Constitutional
For a supersedeas for a peer of the realm. Supersedeas.
My Lord Moone had a sute commenced against him in this Court, and tbereupon he moves by his councel upon an affidavit that he was a peer of the realm, and a Lord of the Parliament, and therefore ought not to be sued, and prayes for a supersedeas to stay the proceedings. Roll lustice, Plead your privilege, for upon an affidavit we will make no rule, or else acquaint the other party that he is a peer of the realm, and it is like he will forbear to proceed thereupon. But you ought not to troubl the Court with such notions as these.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Friend v Duke of Richmond (1667) Hardres 461
1667

Hale CB
Constitutional, Land
Two subjects brought action for ejectment. The defendant took the point that the claimant could not sue in ejectment. It was necessary to allege entry by a tenant. There could not be an entry, as the Crown had already obtained a judgment based on an information of intrusion and a person could not enter against the Crown. The plaintiff responded that he was not bound by the judgment, as he was not a party to that action and so he could allege an entry. Held: The objection was overruled. Sir Matthew Hale observed obiter that "And though the judgment in intrusion includes an amoveas manum, yet it extends only to such as may lawfully be amoved. And if the sheriff do otherwise, he is a disseisor; as if in a judgment against A., in a real action, he should oust B., who neither claims under A., nor is tenant to the action. And the King cannot gain anything by wrong; so that he cannot be a disseisor, but they that enter."
1 Citers


 
Bushell's case (1670) 6 St Tr 999; [1729] EngR 49; (1729) T Jones 13; (1729) 84 ER 1123; (1670) Jones T 13; 84 ER 1123
1670


Constitutional, Torts - Other, Criminal Practice
The case was, that Bushel and other jurors in London (for the trial of a traverse on an indictment against several persons for conventicling against the form of the statute lately made) were fin’d and imprisoned at the sessions in the Old Baily, because they gave their verdict against full evidence and the direction of the court in matter of law and so acquitted the prisoners. In this case it was first debated at the Bar, and on the Bench, whether the Common Pleas could award an habeas corpus in this case. Wild, Archer and Tyre1 Justices. This Court may well award it, and for this cited Anderson part 1, 297, 298. 2 Inst 615. Moor Rep 839, 1132. Brownl. part 1, 33, Vaughan Chief Justice on the contrary, and he said, that some habeas corpora's are granted of course, others not without motion, and for tbis reason on motion, because it is not of necessity to be done of course, therefore there is no necessity for the granting it; for the Court ought to be satisfied that the party hath probably cause to be delivered. This Court has not power to grant it in general, but only in case of privilege, or excess of jurisdiction of an Inferior Court, in which case every one has the privilege of being discharged by the Courts of Westminster. This Court does not grant, because they have cognizance of the cause, but because it is a probable suggestion that this Court can deliver the party. If on the retorn the cause be expresly just, the party ought to be remanded, if expresly unjust, discharged, if doutbtful, bailed. The writ is ad subjiciend’ & recipiend‘ qd‘ Cur’ consideraverit & ut Cur’ nostr. visa causa illa; or qd' de jure & consuetudine regni nostr' fuerit faciend' &c. But this Court in criminal causes cannot do this. He urged that the want of precedents in this Court is a great argument that such writs are not grantable here. The writ moreover requires that the body una cum die caption’ habeat’, by which the Court ought to be certified how long the party has been in custody ; for if for a long a time and no procedure against him, the Court ought to bail the prisoner though committed for felony or treason, which is improper for this Court that has no cognizance of crimes; for this Court is for Common Pleas, between subject and subject, but in a criminal case the plea is between the King and his prisoner.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Thomas v Sorrell; KBD 1674 - (1674) Vaughan 330; [1673] EWHC KB J85; 124 ER 1098-1113

 
 Prohibitions; 1683 - [1683] EngR 28; (1683) Burrell 260; (1683) 167 ER 563 (D)
 
Jay v Topham (1684) 12 How St Tr 822; 1689 Com Journ x 22; (1689) 14 East 102; (1689) 104 ER 540
1684

Sir Francis Pemberton CJ and Sir Thomas Jones
Constitutional
The defendant was serjeant at arms to the House of Commons. Acting under orders from the House, for an alleged contempt of it, he arrested the plaintiff and others. The plaintiff now sued for false imprisonment. Held: The court overruled the demurrer as to the jurisdiction of the court over an officer of the House.
1 Citers


 
Alexander Mill of Hatton, William Ross, and David Butter, Baillies of The Town of Montrose, for Themselves and Other Magistrates of The Said Town v Colonel Robert Reid and Others, Members of The Town Council of The Said Burgh [1723] UKHL Robertson - 452; (1723) Robertson 452
23 Jan 1723
HL

Scotland, Elections, Constitutional, Magistrates
Member of parliament - In an action to reduce the election of certain magistrates of a royal burgh, on account of the imprisonment of certain of the electors by the provost, who was a member of parliament: the provost's privilege of parliament could not be pleaded to stop the declarator against the other defenders, as not elected by a sufficient quorum:
And the provost's privilege of parliament could not stop the pursuers from insisting upon the reason of reduction, that some of the electors were unwarrantably imprisoned by the provost.
Burgh Royal -It was relevant to annul the election of magistrates, that the provost had unwarrantably imprisoned some of the electors, during the time of the election, with an intention to prevent their giving their votes at that election.
[ Bailii ]
 
Dame Either Gray, Widow and Executrix of Sir James Gray, Bart Her Late Husband, Deceased v Edward Callander, Writer In Edinburgh [1724] UKHL Robertson - 483; (1724) Robertson 483
1 Apr 1724
HL

Scotland, Constitutional
Assignation General - An assignation to a creditor of as much of the first and readiest of the rents of his lands that should happen to be due to him at the time of his decease, as would satisfy and pay a certain sum, gave no preference in a competition of creditors after the debtor's death.
Creditors of a defunct - Act of Sederunt, 1662 - After expiration of six month from the debtor's death, one creditor cites the executor in an action of constitution on the 18th of June, and same day the executor cites that creditor, and the general assignee above-mentioned, in a multiple poinding: the latter afterwards, on the 27th of June, cited the executor in an action of constitution; the creditor, giving the first citation, also got the first decree of constitution, and is by the Court preferred to the other; but the judgment is reversed, and both are preferred pari passu.
[ Bailii ]
 
The Warden of The Fleet's Case [1726] EngR 838; (1726) 2 Vent 154; (1726) 86 ER 364 (A)
1726


Constitutional
A motion was made by the warden of the Fleet, for a writ of privilege, sitting the Parliament, alledging that he was obliged to attend the House of Lords, and therefore ought to be privileged from suits; and divers precedents were shewn, where writs of the like nature were granted to the warden of the Fleet upon motion, one whereof was 2 Car. 1, and divers since that time, some whereof appeared to be upon hearing of counsel on both sides.
And the Court were at first inclined to grant him the like writ; but it being afterwards made appear to the Court, that he was sued upon escapes, and the Court considering the great inconvenience that would ensue thereupon, and being of opinion that it was in their discretion, whether they would grant such writ upon motion or no ; for they could not judicially take notice of this privilege of Parliament ; and therefore in case he had such privilege, the Court said he might plead it, if he would, but they would not grant him such writ upon motion: or if his privilege were infringed by the parties prosecuting a suit against him, he might complain to the Lords for a breach of privilege.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Sir Thomas Kennedy, Claiming The Title Honour, and Dignity of Earl of Cassils v Earl of Ruglen and March Also Claimant [1762] UKHL 2 - Paton - 55; (1762) 2 Paton 55
26 Jan 1762
HL

Constitutional
Prerage - Succession to.-
When the dignity of the Earldom of Cassils was first created, (1509), written patents of nobility were not introduced, containing special limitations of the descent. The Cassils' family estates, according to the investiture, bore at this time to be in favour of heirs general, or heirs of line. Afterwards, and in the year 1671, resignation was made into the hands of the Crown, and a new charter procured, bearing to be in favour of heirs male, whom failing, to heirs female of his body "cum armis et dignitate familiae de Cassils."-Held, 1 st, Where no express limitation, or descent of the grant appears, the dignity is always presumed to descend to the heir male. 2 d, That the resignation and new charter 1671 did not comprise, or extend to the honours, but only to the estate.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Wilkes v Wood; CCP 6-Dec-1763 - [1763] EWHC CP J95; [1763] EngR 103; (1763) Lofft 1; (1763) 98 ER 489
 
Triquet v Bath (1764) 3 Burr 1478
1764

Lord Mansfield
Constitutional, International
For a servant of a minister of a foreign country to claim protection against prosecution, it is not necessary for him to show every incident of such service, it is enough for him to show actual bona fide service. Where such service is established on affidavit, "we must not, upn bare suspicion only, suppose it to have been merely colourable and collusive."
1 Citers



 
 Entick v Carrington; KBD 1765 - (1765) 2 Wils 275; (1765) 19 St Tr 1030; [1765] EWHC KB J98; [1799] EngR 236; (1799) 2 Wils KB 275; (1799) 95 ER 807; 1558-1774 All ER Rep 45
 
John Wilkes, Esq v The King [1768] EngR 2; (1768) Wilm 322; (1768) 97 ER 123
1768
HL

Crime, Constitutional
Mr Wilkes had been accused of making a seditious libel against the King. He had peaded not guilty, but then absconded after his conviction, but before his sentence.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v John Wilkes, Esq [1770] EngR 34; (1770) 4 Burr 2527; (1770) 98 ER 327 (B)
7 Feb 1770


Constitutional, Criminal Practice
An information for a misdemearior may be amended the day before trial by a single Judge at chambers on hearing both sides aiid without the consent of the defendant.
On setting aside John Wilkes' outlawry for publishing The North Briton, Lord Mansfield said that the law must be applied even if the heavens fell
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Somerset's Case, Somerset v Stewart; 1772 - (1772) 20 StTr 1; [1772] EngR 57; (1772) Lofft 1; (1772) 98 ER 499; (1772) 20 How St Tr 1

 
 Campbell v Hall; 1774 - (1774) 1 Cowp 204; [1774] EngR 5
 
Fabrigas v Mostyn (1773) 20 St Tr 82; [1775] 1 Copp 161; [1775] 98 ER 1021
1775

Lord Mansfield CJ
Constitutional, Commonwealth, Personal Injury, Legal Professions
The plaintiff a native Minorquan sought to bring an action in England for an alleged assault and false imprisonment on him in Minorca by the Governor of Minorca. Held: Such an action could be brought. What foreign law is is a matter of fact to be determined by the provision of evidence, with the court assisting the jury to explain it. An action may not be brought against a judge on a court of record for something done by him in court. He may plead that it was done as such a judge, and that will be a complete defence.
1 Cites


 
Nabob of The Carnatic v The East India Company [1789] EngR 1626; (1789-1817) 1 Ves Jun Supp 149; (1789) 34 ER 729
2 Jan 1789


Constitutional, Jurisdiction
A political treaty, between sovereigns, or parties exercising sovereign authority cannot be the subject of a municipal jurisdiction.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Lord Abingdon (1794) 1 Esp 226; (1794) 170 ER 337
1794


Constitutional
A Member of Parliament chose to have his earlier speech in the House re-published "under his authority and sanction . . and at his expense". Held: Statements made outside Parliament are not protected by absolute privilege even if they simply repeat what was said therein.
1 Citers


 
James Earl of Lonsdale v Henry Littledale [1794] EngR 2210; (1794) 5 Bro PC 520; (1794) 2 ER 836
26 May 1794
PC

Constitutional
A Peer of parliament, having pleaded in chief to a bill filed against him, in the Court of King's Bench, cannot afterwards assign for error, that he ought to have been sued by original writ, and not by bill.
Quaere? Whether the Court of King's Bench has jurisdiction to proceed against a peer of parliament by bill.
[ Commonlii ]
 
The Rebeckah (1799) 1 Ch Rob 227; [1799] EngR 645; (1799) 1 C Rob 227; (1799) 165 ER 158
26 Feb 1799

Lord Stowell, Sir William Scott
Constitutional
Lord Stowell discussed the rationale behind the inversion in cases involving the Crown of the principle that a clause is to be construed against the proposer saying that: "the prerogatives and rights and emoluments of the Crown being conferred upon it for great purposes, and for the public use, it shall not be intended that such prerogatives, rights and emoluments are diminished by any grant, beyond what such grant by necessary and unavoidable construction shall take away."
Sir William Scott said that "the prerogatives . . of the Crown being conferred upon it for great purposes, and for the public use, it shall not be intended that such prerogatives . . are diminished by any grant, beyond what such grant by necessary and unavoidable construction shall take away"
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.