Ward v. . Kedswin, (1793)
Court: Court of King's Bench
Number:
Visitors: 9
Judges: CREW, C. J.
Filed: Jul. 05, 1793
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: But it was answered and resolved by the court that it is well enough in detinet . 46 E., 3, 15. One does not declare ad valenciam when it is for English money; but here it is well enough, for the value of one is known, but not of the other. It might be in debet et detinet; but the practice is in detinet alone; it is not like bullion. I remember well the case in T. 3 Jac.
In such a case the judgment shall be conditional, 38 El. Rep., Shaw andPayne. Debt was brought in *detinet for foreign money, and because the judgment was not conditional, it was reversed.
The second point is, that the action is laid in London, and the obligation appears to be dated at Hamburgh, beyond the seas. But Jermyn
took a distinction, because the date of the deed may be intended not to be in a town, but in some place in London. It would be otherwise if itappeared to be in partibus transmarinis; then the action would not lie. Jones, 69; Bendl., 149; 2 Keble., 463; Antea, pp. 633, 686.
Source: CourtListener