Gifford against Bond and Pococke
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
John Brandon
Gifford against Bond and Pococke
_English Reports_, the massive standard edition of English law reports
running to 178 volumes, contains the following item (83: 1131):
"[15 Charles II.] GIFFORD against BOND AND POCOCKE. Judgement.
The plaintiff giveth a warrant of attorny to acknowledge
satisfaction of any judgment that is, or may be had against bond [sic;
recte Bond], whereby execution may be had: by vertue of this, the
attorny may acknowledge satisfaction on a judgment had against Bond,
Pococke, and Becks, for if any of the parties be sufficiently named,
its [sic] enough; and judgment against three, is sufficient for
acknowledgment of one against two; but not contra'."
Would the date of this (15 Charles II) be 1664 or 1675? I'm thinking
1664, but could it _possibly_ be 1675?
Bond is Nicholas Bond and Pococke is John Pococke. See
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC2 ... holas+bond
running to 178 volumes, contains the following item (83: 1131):
"[15 Charles II.] GIFFORD against BOND AND POCOCKE. Judgement.
The plaintiff giveth a warrant of attorny to acknowledge
satisfaction of any judgment that is, or may be had against bond [sic;
recte Bond], whereby execution may be had: by vertue of this, the
attorny may acknowledge satisfaction on a judgment had against Bond,
Pococke, and Becks, for if any of the parties be sufficiently named,
its [sic] enough; and judgment against three, is sufficient for
acknowledgment of one against two; but not contra'."
Would the date of this (15 Charles II) be 1664 or 1675? I'm thinking
1664, but could it _possibly_ be 1675?
Bond is Nicholas Bond and Pococke is John Pococke. See
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC2 ... holas+bond
-
Gjest
Re: Gifford against Bond and Pococke
John Brandon wrote:
Probably neither. Charles II's reign (for legal purposes) commenced
immediately upon his father's execution, i.e. 30 January 1648/9. Thus,
15 Charles II ran from 30 January 1662/3 until 29 January 1663/4.
_English Reports_, the massive standard edition of English law reports
running to 178 volumes, contains the following item (83: 1131):
"[15 Charles II.] GIFFORD against BOND AND POCOCKE. Judgement.
The plaintiff giveth a warrant of attorny to acknowledge
satisfaction of any judgment that is, or may be had against bond [sic;
recte Bond], whereby execution may be had: by vertue of this, the
attorny may acknowledge satisfaction on a judgment had against Bond,
Pococke, and Becks, for if any of the parties be sufficiently named,
its [sic] enough; and judgment against three, is sufficient for
acknowledgment of one against two; but not contra'."
Would the date of this (15 Charles II) be 1664 or 1675? I'm thinking
1664, but could it _possibly_ be 1675?
Probably neither. Charles II's reign (for legal purposes) commenced
immediately upon his father's execution, i.e. 30 January 1648/9. Thus,
15 Charles II ran from 30 January 1662/3 until 29 January 1663/4.
-
John Brandon
Re: Gifford against Bond and Pococke
Sniff. Picking nits as usual, Michael.
But at least you've stopped your obsession with rating all my posts "1
star" ...
But at least you've stopped your obsession with rating all my posts "1
star" ...
-
Gjest
Re: Gifford against Bond and Pococke
John Brandon twittered:
Wipe your nose and stop snivelling, child. It's called accuracy; you
might like to aspire to it one day, when you grow up.
Still paranoid, I see. You asked a question, and I answered it for
you. An adult might reply with thanks, but as usual you respond with
immature abuse. I'm sorry you feel so threatened. As it happens, I
don't usually waste time reading your largely off-topic posts, let
alone rating them. Have a nice day.
MA-R
Sniff. Picking nits as usual, Michael.
Wipe your nose and stop snivelling, child. It's called accuracy; you
might like to aspire to it one day, when you grow up.
But at least you've stopped your obsession with rating all my posts "1
star" ...
Still paranoid, I see. You asked a question, and I answered it for
you. An adult might reply with thanks, but as usual you respond with
immature abuse. I'm sorry you feel so threatened. As it happens, I
don't usually waste time reading your largely off-topic posts, let
alone rating them. Have a nice day.
MA-R
-
John Brandon
Re: Gifford against Bond and Pococke
Wipe your nose and stop snivelling, child. It's called accuracy; you
might like to aspire to it one day, when you grow up.
Actually, I believe we are the same age (though I would have guessed
you were 20 years older from your sour, fussy ways). Didn't Leo give
you a birthyear of 1968 in his listing of descendants of King John?
That is my date of birth as well.
Still paranoid, I see. You asked a question, and I answered it for
you. An adult might reply with thanks, but as usual you respond with
immature abuse. I'm sorry you feel so threatened. As it happens, I
don't usually waste time reading your largely off-topic posts, let
alone rating them. Have a nice day.
Patronizing little creep ...
-
John Brandon
Re: Gifford against Bond and Pococke
You asked a question, and I answered it for you.
Actually, you didn't answer it. My question, in essence, was whether
the regnal years of Charles II were always figured from 1649, or if
they _might sometimes_ be figured from 1660.
You gave me a schoolmarmish slap on the hand for not knowing that the
death of Charles I occurred in _1648/9_ rather than just plain _1649_.
-
John Brandon
Re: Gifford against Bond and Pococke
A search in the catalogue of the National Archives gives the following
references for Bond v. Gifford (or variant title of Bond v. Giffard)
C 9/21/5
C 9/22/24
C 9/24/9
C 5/593/15
C 22/956/7
With dates of 1651, 1659, 1660, and "between 1649 and 1714."
references for Bond v. Gifford (or variant title of Bond v. Giffard)
C 9/21/5
C 9/22/24
C 9/24/9
C 5/593/15
C 22/956/7
With dates of 1651, 1659, 1660, and "between 1649 and 1714."
-
John Brandon
Re: Gifford against Bond and Pococke
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC7 ... AJ&pg=RA4-
PA516&lpg=RA4-PA516&dq=%22nicholas+bond%22
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC0 ... AAAMAAJ&q=
%22nicholas+bond%22&dq=%22nicholas+bond%22&pgis=1
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC0 ... AAAIAAJ&q=
%22nicholas+bond%22&dq=%22nicholas+bond%22&pgis=1
PA516&lpg=RA4-PA516&dq=%22nicholas+bond%22
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC0 ... AAAMAAJ&q=
%22nicholas+bond%22&dq=%22nicholas+bond%22&pgis=1
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC0 ... AAAIAAJ&q=
%22nicholas+bond%22&dq=%22nicholas+bond%22&pgis=1
-
John Brandon
Re: Gifford against Bond and Pococke
I wonder if the following suit from 1675 wouldn't be applicable,
seeing that John Godfrey of Canterbury was one of Gifford's investors
about this time ...
C 10/126/32
seeing that John Godfrey of Canterbury was one of Gifford's investors
about this time ...
C 10/126/32