« PreviousContinue »
Goodier and Bromley. Page 75 | Humphrey o. Bullen.. Page 458
Hunter, Henry Lanoy, ex parte. 223
Graves v. Boyle.
Hyde and Billon.
Hawkins v. Chappel.
Knapp and Chamberlain,
Hayes and Lake.
281 | Lake and Goodier.
Lake v. Hayes.
Herring v. Yoe.
290 | Le Compte, ex parte.
561 | Lechmere and Manning.
Higden and Brown.
206 Leigh and Hawkins.
Hill v. Bishop of London: 618 | Lewes, ex parte,
381 | Lewis and Ridout,
Litchfield (Earl of) v. Sir John O'Keefe v. Calthorpe. Page 17
579 London Assurance Company and Oliver v. Taylor.
474 Motteux. 545 Omichund v. Barkeri
21 London ( Bishop of) and Hill. 618 Orchard and Clifton.
610 Lowe and Smith.
489 Ord and Brandling. Lucas v. Lucas. 270 Owen v. Owen.
494 Luttrell and Cotton.
Owen and Harrison.
520 Oxley v. Lee.
· Macey v. Shurmer.
. 389 Man and Drury. 95 Palmer v. Mafon.
505 Manning v. Lechmere. 453 Parsons, ex parte.
72 Marlar, ex parte. 150 Parsons, ex parte.
204 Marlborough (Dutchess of) v. Sir Partridge v. Pawlet. Thomas Wheat.
454 Partridge and Cheeseman. Marsh, ex parte.
158 | Patterson and Gibson. Marshall et al, ex parte. 129 Peachy, ex parte.
III Marshall et al, ex parte.
Pepys and Cooper. Marshall, ex parte.
131 | Phipps v. Steward. Mason and Palmer.
505 Pickax and Champion, 472 Massey and Twiss. 67 Pierson v. Shore.
480 May and Bartholomew. 487 | Pilkington and Mayor of York. 282 Medcalfe v. Ives.
63 Plummer, ex parte. Meymot, ex parte. 196 Powell v. Monnier.
611 Mitchell, ex parte. 120 Prescot, ex parte.
230 Miles v. Leigh. 573 | Prescot and Snee.
245 Minshull v. Minshull. 411 | Prestwood and Durant.
454 Molloy and Highmore. 206 | Primrose v. Bromley. Molton v. Hutchinson. 558 Prince v. Heylin. Monnier and Powell.
611 | Probert v. Morgan. Moore v. Moore.
272 Proudfoot, ex parte. · Morgan v.
408 Prowse v. Abingdon. Morgan v. Morgan.
53 Purchase and Catterall. 290 Morgan v. Morgan. 489 Purse v. Snaplin.
414 Morgan and Probert. Morris v. Burroughs.
399 Motteux v. London Assurance Com
Quincy, ex parte. pany.
Newstead v. Searles.
97 | Ramkiflen seat v. Barker. 409 Ramkislenfeat v. Barker,
60 | Ramsden v. Jackson. 524 Read and Smith.
63 Richardson v. Bradshaw, 102 Ridout v. Dowding.
Ridout v. Lewis.
Rittle and Ireland,
269 541 410
Roberts v. Dixwell. Page 607 | Thomas, ex parte.
Page 73 Robinson v. Cuming. 473
Thompson v. Noel.
60 Rooke, ex parte.
125 Russell v. Hammond.
Thompson and Sir Hugh SmithRussel and Whitton.
fon. Ryail v. Ryall.
Titner, ex parte.
Toye and Hinton.
Trap, ex parte.
Treblecock's case: Sandby, ex parte.
Turner, ex parte. Sandon, ex parte.
Turner, ex parte. Scarfe and Casborne.
Turner and Chapman. Searles and Newstead.
Turner and Hill.
515 Shank, ex parte.
Twifs v. Massey.
510 Shurmer and Macey.
Voguel, ex parte. Simpson et al, ex parte.
| Uthwatt and Bellafis. Simpson et al, ex parte. Simpsons bankrupts.
137 Smith, ex parte. 139 Walker v. Burrows.
93 Smith v. Baker. 385 Walton, ex parte.
122 Smith v. Read. 526 Ward, ex parte..
153 Smith v. Lowe.
489 | Ward and Barwell. Smith and Green..
572 | Watts and Fawkner et ux'. 405 Smithson (Sir Hugh) 0. Thomp- / Watts and Fawkner. son,
520 Wheat (Sir Thomas) and Dutchess Snaplin and Purse. 414 of Marlborough.
454 Snee v. Prescot, 245 | White, ex parte.
90 Sneyd v. Sneyd.
442 | Whitchurch, ex parte. Southcote and Harrison, 528 | Whitchurch, ex parte.
55 Spurret v. Spiller.
105 Whitchurch et al, ex parte. 210 Stanley v. Stanley. 455 Whitton v. Russell.
448 Stanley v. Stanley. ,
549 | Wigg v. Wigg. Stapilton v. Stapilton.
Wilder and Blatch. Stephens (Doctor) and Attorney ge- Wildman, ex parte.
358 Williams (Sir John) and Earl of Steward and Phipps.
285 | Litchfield. Stiles, ex parte. 208 Williamson, ex parte,
84 Stillingfeet and Hayward. 422 Willis v. Shorral.
474 Stitch and Lawson. 507 | Wilson, ex parte,
152 Suffolk (Earl of) v. Green. 450! Wilson and Bradshaw, ex parte. 218 Swadlin and Bower. 294 Wood and F:y.
445 Sydebotham, ex parte. 146 | Wood, ex parte.
221 Symance v. Taitam, 613 Woodcock v. King.
Wright and Clerk.
Wyld v. Lewis.
290 Terry and Hall.
502 | York Mayor of) 2. Pilkington. 282 Thayer v. Gould,
Hemojandum, That on Monday the 21st of February 1736,
Lord HARDWICKĘ was appointed Lord High Chancellor
CA P. I.
Abatement and Kevivoz:
CA P. II.
See 2 Tr. Arka
I. pl. 2, 113. Account.
119. pl. 109,
144, 252, 254,
399, 410, 610, pl. 241. 3 Tr. Atk. 70. pl. 24, 303, (A) Tuhat fhall be a good bar to a demand of a general one.
Michaelmas term 1727.
sets forth a
Dawson v. Dawson.
Case 1: Lord Chancellor. T T THERE a bill is brought for a ge- Where a defenneral account, and the defendant dant fets
ftated account, sets forth a stated one, the plaintiff it is a bar to a
must amend his bill: For the fta- general one till ted account is, prima facie, a bar till particular errors are af- par
are afligned. figned to the stated account.
To support a stated account it is not sufficient to say, that it is not fufficithere has been a dividend, which implies an account stated, ent, to maintain
a stated account, for a dividend may be made upon a supposition that the estate to alledge there will amount to so much ; but still subject to an account that has ben a divi. may be taken afterwards.
dend made between the pare ties.
CA P. III.
Graves V. Bogle,
CA P. IV.