Literal Meaning
Let the writ be quashed
Explanation
In practice Cassetur billa is also known as billa cassetur or quod billa cassetur. The type of judgment for the litigant on a supplication in reduction, where the activity was started by the bill. The type of a passage made by an offended party on the record, after a supplication in reduction, where he found that the request couldn’t be admitted and kept away from, nor crossed, nor challenged to; measuring in actuality to a discontinuance of the activity. .A judgment suppresses a request in reduction. Additionally named judgment of cassetur billa. An offended party’s on-the-record confirmation that a litigant’s supplication in reduction can’t be kept away from. This announcement suspends the activity. That the bill is subdued. The coinnion-law type of a judgment supporting a request in decrease, where the procedure is by bill, i.e., by a capias rather than by a unique writ.
Origin
Cassetur billa is a Latin term which means that the bill be quashed. It is mainly used for quashing of a judgement in cases of plea in abatement. It is also done on a plaintiff’s request on the on-record depending on that the admission of the defendant’s plea in abatement cannot be avoided in any case. It is basically a statement that discontinues the action which was in progress.
Case Reference
In the case of Ditchburn v Spracklin[1] it was held that this was an action of debt, for cordage supplied to the brig “Brothers’ Adventure,” charging the defendants as the owners. A former action had been brought, in which Saunders was not included. The three first defendants pleaded in abatement, that Saunders was a partner, and not included in the action. The plaintiff entered a cassetur billa ; and the present action was then commenced. The declaration stated, that the defendants were indebted to plaintiff in £ of lawful money, &c. for divers goods, wares, and merchandise of him the said before that time sold and delivered.
In Duppa v. Mayo it was observed that if the object be, as it is, to give a better writ, the plea should pray that the writ be quashed; and the judgment is, “quod cassetur billa vel breve;” the bill where the action was so commenced, or the writ where it was not. It is now no ground for setting aside the declaration that it varies from the writ as to the number of the defendants, so that the writ may be perfectly right.
In the case of Bowyer v Cook[2] it was held that the conclusion, quod respondere non debet ad billam , is good, because the plaintiff names us executrix , and not administratrix , and either this or quod cassetur billa is good,. Debt by executor, and a profert, &c . the defendant pleaded, that the party which was dead, died intestate, and that letters of administration were granted to him, absque hoc that the plaintiff is executor; and by the Court the traverse is not good, and day was given to put him to a peremptory plea. It should have begun the plea, petit judicium de billâ but if there had been a traverse, the plea had been naught; as if he had said, absque hoc that he made her executrix. But my exception is, that he ought to have traversed, that he had not administered as executor before administration granted, for we have liberty to charge him as executor, de son tort as a rightful one. At another day this case was again debated.
Edited by Vigneshwar Ramasubramania
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje
Reference
[1] Ditchburn v Spracklin, [1803] 1 WLUK 22
[2] Bowyer v Cook, [1700] 1 WLUK 420
