Alcock v. . Blofield

Court of King's Bench

Alcock v. . Blofield

1 N.C. 783

DecidedJuly 5, 1793

StatusPublished

This text of 1 N.C. 783 (Alcock v. . Blofield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of King's Bench primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alcock v. . Blofield, 1 N.C. 783 (kingsbench 1793).

Pincite

Opinion

1. It was agreed by the court the request is issuable, and therefore ought to be specially and certainly alleged. For there is no duty before the request, it being on the contract of a stranger. But when it is for the party's own debt, licet saepius requisit., is sufficient as the debt is due without a promise.

2. The scilicet is merely void, being contrary to the premises. Ideo judgment is affirmed, puto. irrot. P. 3 Car. rot., 213. Vide where the postea shall be void. P. 2 Jac. rot., 539; Noy, 95.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1. It was agreed by the court the request is issuable, and therefore ought to be specially and certainly alleged. For there is no duty before the request, it being on the contract of a stranger. But when it is for the party's own debt, licet saepius requisit., is sufficient as the debt is due without a promise.

2. The scilicet is merely void, being contrary to the premises. Ideo judgment is affirmed, puto. irrot. P. 3 Car. rot., 213. Vide where the postea shall be void. P. 2 Jac. rot., 539; Noy, 95.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 N.C. 783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alcock-v-blofield-kingsbench-1793.