Difference between revisions of "MRP: C10/91/84 f. 2"
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==C10/91/84 f. 2== | ==C10/91/84 f. 2== | ||
---- | ---- | ||
| − | ===Abstract== | + | ===Abstract=== |
| − | + | ||
| + | The London merchant Charles Marescoe responded with a Demurrer (C10/91/84 f. 2) to a Bill of Complaint by the brothers and London merchants Nathaniell and John Letten ([[MRP: C10/91/84 f. 1|C10/91/84 f. 1]]). He argued that the Letten brothers' Bill of Complaint was insufficient at law, and hence required no further answer. He concluded with a request to the Lord Chancellor to rule whether he were to be compelled to make any further answer. | ||
---- | ---- | ||
===Transcription=== | ===Transcription=== | ||
| + | //The Demurrer of Charles Marescoe Merchant def:t to the Bill of Comp:lt// | ||
| + | //of Nathaniel Letten and John Letten Merchants Comp:lts// | ||
| + | //The said deft saith that he is advised that the said Bill of Complt is insufficient in the Lawe to be// | ||
| + | |||
| + | //Answererd unto by this defend:t and that he is not by the Rules and practice of this Court// | ||
| + | |||
| + | //requireable soo to doo And therefore this deft doth demurre thereunto and for cause of// | ||
| + | |||
| + | //demurrer humbly sheweth That the Affid:t to the said Bill annexed and w:ch is the onely// | ||
| + | |||
| + | //ground thereof is defective and alltogether insufficient for that purpose In that it doth// | ||
| + | |||
| + | //not thereby appeare but that the said two Bills of Exchange in the said Bill and affid:t// | ||
| + | |||
| + | //menconned may be still extant and be pduced to be made use of att Lawe against this// | ||
| + | |||
| + | //defend:t for such cause and for divers other causes and imperfect in the said Bill and// | ||
| + | |||
| + | //Affid:t thereunto annexed contayned this deft doth demurre to the said Bill and// | ||
| + | |||
| + | //humbly demands the Judgement of this court whether he shall be compelled to make// | ||
| + | |||
| + | //any further or other Answeare thereunto and humbly prayeth to be dismissed with his// | ||
| + | |||
| + | //costs// | ||
| + | |||
| + | //Edw?r: Peck [Signature, bottom RH corner]// | ||
---- | ---- | ||
| Line 14: | Line 41: | ||
See [[MRP: C10/91/84 f. 1|C10/91/84 f. 1]] | See [[MRP: C10/91/84 f. 1|C10/91/84 f. 1]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | ===Possible primary sources=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | PROB 11/333 Penn 67-128 Will of Charles Marescoe, Merchant of London 12 September 1670 | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | ===Possible secondary sources=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Henry Roseveare, ''Markets and merchants of the late seventeenth century: the Marescoe-David letters, 1668-1680'' (London, 1987) | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Latest revision as of 08:45, November 19, 2011
Contents
C10/91/84 f. 2
Abstract
The London merchant Charles Marescoe responded with a Demurrer (C10/91/84 f. 2) to a Bill of Complaint by the brothers and London merchants Nathaniell and John Letten (C10/91/84 f. 1). He argued that the Letten brothers' Bill of Complaint was insufficient at law, and hence required no further answer. He concluded with a request to the Lord Chancellor to rule whether he were to be compelled to make any further answer.
Transcription
//The Demurrer of Charles Marescoe Merchant def:t to the Bill of Comp:lt//
//of Nathaniel Letten and John Letten Merchants Comp:lts//
//The said deft saith that he is advised that the said Bill of Complt is insufficient in the Lawe to be//
//Answererd unto by this defend:t and that he is not by the Rules and practice of this Court//
//requireable soo to doo And therefore this deft doth demurre thereunto and for cause of//
//demurrer humbly sheweth That the Affid:t to the said Bill annexed and w:ch is the onely//
//ground thereof is defective and alltogether insufficient for that purpose In that it doth//
//not thereby appeare but that the said two Bills of Exchange in the said Bill and affid:t//
//menconned may be still extant and be pduced to be made use of att Lawe against this//
//defend:t for such cause and for divers other causes and imperfect in the said Bill and//
//Affid:t thereunto annexed contayned this deft doth demurre to the said Bill and//
//humbly demands the Judgement of this court whether he shall be compelled to make//
//any further or other Answeare thereunto and humbly prayeth to be dismissed with his//
//costs//
//Edw?r: Peck [Signature, bottom RH corner]//
Commentary
See C10/91/84 f. 1
Possible primary sources
PROB 11/333 Penn 67-128 Will of Charles Marescoe, Merchant of London 12 September 1670
Possible secondary sources
Henry Roseveare, Markets and merchants of the late seventeenth century: the Marescoe-David letters, 1668-1680 (London, 1987)
