« PreviousContinue »
(xvii.) C. P. Div.-Costs-Order of House of Lords.-An action lies on the
judgment of the House of Lords ordering an unsuccessful appellant to pay to respondent the costs of appeal.-Marbella Iron Ore Co. v. Allen,
47 L.J. C.P. 601; 38 L.T. 815. (xviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Costs—Set-off-Solicitor's Lien.—An order was
made in a partnership suit confirming a compromise by which plaintiff took the assets and was to pay thereout the costs of the suit, and defendant was in a certain event to pay plaintiff a sum of money : The partnership assets were sufficient to pay all the costs, but plaintiff claimed to set-off the som payable by defendant against the costs : on an application by defendant and his solicitor for payment of the costs : Held that the solicitor's lien precluded the set-off.--Heiron v. Hobson,
47 L.J, Ch. 574. (xix.) C. P. Div.-Costs -Taxation. The affect of rule 8 of special allow.
ances for costs in rules of Court, Aag., 1875, is to give the Master a discretion as to what allowances shall be made for the attendance of witnesses in Court, without regard to the old scale of charges.—Turnbull
v. Janson, 26 W.R. 815. (xx.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Costs - Taxation-Additional Rules, Aug., 1875,
r. 18.—Where defendant obtains an order to stay proceedings on payment of costs, it is the duty of the master when taxing the costs to determine questions raised as to the propriety of proceedings for which charges
are made.-Baines v. Wormsley, 39 L.T. 85. (xxi.) C. J. B.-Costs --Taxation-Attendance of Country Solicitor.--A country
solicitor personally attending an appeal instead of employing his London agent will be allowed on taxation the additional costs occasioned thereby.
-Ex parte Dickens, Re Foster, L.R. 8 Ch.D. 598; 26 W.R. 915. (xxii.) Ch. Div. F.J.-Costs—Tuxation—Three Counsel Shorthand Notes.
On taxation between party and party, costs of employing more than two counsel may be allowed if the Court is of opinion that such a course was jastifiable : in the absence of special directions at the trial the costs of copies of shorthand notes of evidence will not be allowed. Kirkwood v.
Webster, 26 W.R. 812. (xxiii.) Ex. Div.-Costs—To follow Event-Ord. 55, r. 1.—Where a new trial
has been ordered, the party who succeeds at the second trial is, in the absence of special direction, entitled to costs of first trial under Ord. 55, r. 1.-Field v. G. N. Rail. Co., L.R. 3 Ex. D. 261; 39 L.T. 80; 26 W.R.
317. (xxiv.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Counter-claim—Wife's Separate Estate.--In an
action seeking to charge a wife's separate estate in respect of a debt due to plaintiff, to which the husband was made a party : a counter-claim in respect of moneys due to the husband and pictures of the husband detained by the plaintiff was allowed.-Hodson v. Mochi, L.R. 8 Ch. D.
569 ; 47 L.J. Ch. 604. (xxv.) C. A.-Court Fees-- Forma Pauperis.- The Chief Clerk's certificate
ordered to be delivered out without payment of Court fees, plaintiff having, since it was ready, ob'ained an order to sue in formâ pauperis.
Thomas v. Ellis, L.R. 8 Ch. D. 518; 26 W.R. 839. (xxvi.) Ch. Div. M. R.- Default of Appearance Payment into Court.--In an
administrative action, notice of motion was served on defandant, an executor, for payment into Court of money, part of testator's estate, which it was shown by affidavit that he had received : defendant did not appear: Held that he had sufficiently admitted that the money was in his hands by not answering the affidavit, and that he must pay it into
Court.- Freeman v. Cor, 47 L.J. Ch. 560. (xxvii.) C. A. -Default of Appearance-Setting Aside Judgment-Ord. 36, r. 20.
--Where through a mistake either party fails to appear on an action being called on for trial, and judgment is given in default of appearance, it is a matter of course io restore the action on payment of costs of the day, when an application is made within due time.-Burgoine v. Taylor,
47 L.J. Ch. 542. (xxviii.) Ch. Div. F. J.--Default of Appearance--Setting Aside Judgment
Costs.--Judgment dismissing an action for default of appearance by plaintiff, was set aside on terms of plaintiff paying costs of previous trial and of motion to set aside.—Cockle v. Joyce, Wright v. Clifford, 47
L.J. Ch. 543. (xxix.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Default of Appearance—Test Action -- Ord. 36, r. 19.
-Where, at the trial, a plaintiff declined to proceed, the Court declined to take into consideration the fact that the action had been made a test action for the purpose of deciding rights between plaintiffs in similar actions and the same defendants, but ordered the action to be dismissed,
with costs.-- Robinson v. Chadwick, 47 L.J. Ch. 607. (xxx) C. A.-Default of Appearance-Test Action.—Where one of several
actions against same defendants has been ordered to be tried as a test action, and plaintiff in such a 'tion lets judgment go by default, the Court may substitute another action as the test action.- Amos v.
Chadwick, 39 L.T. 50; 26 N.R. 840. (xxxi.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.--Discovery-- Affidavit of Documents.In an
action for account in which the issue of settled accounts was raised, defendant was ordered to make an affidavit of documents claimed to be
covered by the settled accounts.--Dickson v. Harrison, 47 L.J. Ch. 686. (xxxii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Discovery-Interrogatories—Member of Cor.
poration --Ord. 31, rr. 4, 5.-On an application for an order to serve interrogatories on a member of a company the Court will not look at the interrogatories, but will only consider the fitness of the member to give
information... Berkesley v. Standard Discount Co., 26 W.R. 852. (xxxiii.) C. A.-Discovery-Interrogatories--Tendency to Criminate-Ord. 31,
r. 8.-Where interrogatories inquire after matters amounting to an indictable offence they ought not to be struck out, but the party interro. gated may decline to answer them as tending to criminate : a party may decline to answer under Order 31, r. 8, though he might have applied to have the interrogatories strack out ander Ort. 31, r. 5.–Fisher v.
Owen, L.R. 8 Ch. D. 645; 47 L.J. Ch. 681. (xxxiv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Discovery-Interrogatories- Service-Ord. 31,
r. 21.-The service of an order to answer interrogatories and the notice of motion for attachment in default on the solicitor of the defaulting party is sufficient.-In re Mulcaster, Dalston v. Nanson, 47 L.J.
Ch. 609. (xxxv.) P. D. A. Div.-Discs very- Privilege.-Reports of a survey of a
ship made before action brought, are privileged if made solely for
purpose of the action.--The Theodore Korner, 38 L.T. 818. (xxxvi.) C. A.-Evidence--Appeal – Further Evidence-Ord. 58, r. 5. - Affidavits
which were used in chambers were rejected, on further consideration : plaintiff, in his notice of appeal, gave notice of motion for leave to read them: Held that they were further evidence within Ord. 58, r. 5, and leave given to read them.--Jones v. Chennell, L.R. 8 Ch. D. 492 ;
47 L.J. Ch. 583. (xxxvii.) C. C. R.---Evidence- Deposition—Pregnancy-11 S 12 Vict., c. 42,
s. 17.—Preguancy alone may be a source of illness within 11 & 12 Vict., c. 42, s. 17, so as to give the judge power to admit in evidence in a prosecution the deposition of a witness unable to travel in consequence of her approaching confinement. - Regina v. Wellings, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 426.
(xxxviii.) Ex. Div.-Execution-Order to Pay Amount Levied— Notice to Sheriff
-Ord. 53, rr. 1, 2.-An application for an order to compel a sheriff who bas returned a writ of fi. fa. to pay over the amount levied is a proceeding in an action within Ord. 53, r. 1, 2, and should be made on motion after
notice to sheriff.-.Delmar v. Freemantle, L.R. 3 Ex. D. 237. (xxxix.) C. A.-Inrollment of Decree--Bill of Review.--Held that the inroll.
ment of a decree made in the presence of A. in an administration suit, whereby it was declared that certain property belonged to T. beneficially, did not render it necessary for A. to file a bill of review and to vacate the inrollment before instituting a suit to set aside a sale whereby T. claimed to have become the beneficial owner of the property.-Widgery
v. Tepper, 47 L.J. Ch. 550. (xl.) C. P. Div.- Interpleader — Claim for Purt of Goods.-On
interpleader issne claimant was ordered to specify which of the goods seized he claimed, but did not do so : a verdict having been found for claimant as to part of the goods only: Held that the execution creditor was entitled to the amount paid into Court under the interpleader order and that claimant must pay the costs of the trial.—Plummer v. Price,
39 L.T. 38. (xli.) C. P. Div.-Interpleader-1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 58, s. 1.-L. sent wine to
London to D., which D. deposited with a dock company and received dock warrants making the wine deliverable to D. or his assigns, which he indorsed to plaintiff : L. served the company with notice not to part with the wine which he alleged had been obtained from him by fraud, and plaintiff broaght an action against the company for detaining the wine : Held that the company could not interplead.--Attenborough v.
St. Katherine's Dock Co., L.R. 3 C.P.D. 373. (xlii.) C. A.-Order for Sale--Admission--Ord. 40, r. 11.-In a suit com.
menced under the old practice, when plaintiff claimed a charge on bonds deposited in the bank to the credit of the cause, which defendant admitted, the Court ordered a sale of the bonds on plaintiff's application before trial under Ord. 40, r. 11.—Coddington v. Jacksonville Rail. Co., 39
L.T. 12. (xliii.) C. A.-Parties-Administrator ad Litem.-An administrator ad litem
does not sufficiently represent the estate in an action where plaintiff seeks to establish his title as sole next of kin of an intestate.
Dowdeswell v. Dowdeswell, 38 L.T. 828. (xliv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Parties-Conflicting Interest.-A., who was in.
terested under a will, died insolvent, and his creditors obtained an administration decree: A.'s executrix, who had also an interest under the will opposed to that of A., was made defendant in another action for the administration of the trusts of the will, and the creditors obtained an order for leave to intervene in this action: Held that the order was irregular, and that some other person onght to have been appointed to defend in the action in the name of the executrix on the behalf of the
son's estate.--Samuel v. Samuel, 47 L.J. Ch. 716. (xlv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Parties—Infant Plaintiff-Ord. 16, 7. 8.-In
an action for breach of trust and execution of the trusts of a will by infants by their step-father as next friend, who was also made a defendant, the Court ordered his name to be struck out as defendant, and gave the wife leave to defend without her husband.-Lewis v. Nobbs,
L.R. 8 Ch. D. 591; 47 L.J. Ch. 662. (xlvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Parties - Joinder--Ord. 16, r. 17.—Plaintiff
having bought property from defendant brought an action to have £2,000 of the purchase-money retarned to him: defendant was also being sued in the Ex. Div. for the £2,000 by persons claiming it as commission on the sale : the Court refused to order the plaintiffs in the Ex.
Div. to be served with a third party notice, or made defendants to this action under Ord. 16, r. 17. – Associated Home Co. v. Whichcord, 47 L.J.
Ch. 652. (xlvii.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Parties- Partition--31 & 32 Vict., c. 40.-In a
partition action relating to leasehold property, where plaintiffs were executors and trustees for sale, entitled to part of the property, and defendants were a person entitled to the rest of the property for life, and other executors and trustees for sale entitled in remainder, it was Held that the beneficiaries under the trasts were not necessary parties.--Stace
v. Gage, 47 L.J. Ch. 608; 38 L.T. 843. (xlviii.) C. P. Div.-Parties–Married Woman-Separate Estate—33 & 34
Vict., c. 93.-A married woman cannot be sued in respect of her separate estate for the price of goods sold to her during coverture, without joining her husband as defendant-Hancocks v. Lablache, 47 L.J.
C.P. 514. (xlix.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Payment into Court-Omission in Trustee's Affidavit
-10 & 11 Vict., c. 96.—Where a trastee paying into Court under the Trustee Relief Act omits in his affidavit the name of one of the persons entitled to any of the inoneys, the proper course for such person to pursue, in order to obtain payment out, is to apply by petition.--Pilling
v. Goddard, 47 L.J. Ch. 646; 38 L.T. 811. (1.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Pleading- Claim in Representutive Character
Demurrer.—When a plaintiff sues in a representative character, the state. ment of claim is to be read for the purposes of demurrer, as if that fact
were stated therein.-Johnson v. Burges, 47 L.J. Ch. 552. (li.) Ex. Div.-Pleading — Counter-Claim Set-off. - In an action by the
assignor of a debt, the debtors pleaded, by way of set-off and counterclaim, damages for breach of contract by the assignor: Held that he could not recover damages against the plaintiff, but was entitled by way of set-off against the plaintiff's claim, to the damages sustained from the breach of contract by the assignor.—Young v. Kitchen, 47 L.J.
Ex. 579. (lii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Pleading---Counter-Claim-Ord. 49, r. 3.-Where to
an action for dissolution of partnership defendant set up a counter.claim raising a different cause of action : Held that such claim could not be
conveniently disposed of in the action.-Naylor v. Farrer, 26 W.R. 809. (liji.) C. A.—Pleading-Payment into Court-Denial of Cause of Action.—As
a general rule a defendant may deny plaintiff's causes of action, and at the same time plead payment into Court in respect of the whole or any part of them.-Berdan v. Greenwood, L.R. 3 Ex. D. 251 ; 47 L.J. Ex. 628;
26 W.R. 902. (liv.) Ch. Div. F. J.-Pleading-Set-off-Ne exeat regno—Damages.-A
defendant need not, in claiming set-off, separate the claim or the state. ment of facts relied upon, in any way, from his statement of defence : in claiming damages for a writ of Ne exeat regno, alleged to have been im. properly obtained, the applicant should first move to discharge the writ.
—Lees v. Patterson, 47 L.J. Ch. 616. (lv.) C. A.-Reference-Error of Referee-Judicature Act, 1873, s. 56.-A
judge has no power to alter or vary the report of a special referee: If he refuses to adopt it, he must either hear the case himself or remit the
report to the referee.-Dunkirk Hall Colliery Co. v. Lever, 2; W.R. 841. (lvi.) C. P. Div.- Security for Costs.- Where, after an action had been set
down for trial, plaintiff filed a liquidation petition, he was ordered to give security for past as well as future costs.-- Brocklebank v. King's Lynn Steamship Co., L.R. 3 C.P.D. 365,
(lvii.) C. A.-Security for Costs.-Admiralty Action-Joinder of Action
Counter-Claim against one Plaintiff.—Where owners of a ship which has sunk and owners of the cargo on board join as plaintiffs in an action against another ship for damages sustained by collision, the Court will order the claim by the shipowner to be dismissed in default of his giving security for the counter-claim, but will allow the owner of the cargo to
proceed withont security.-The Carnarvon Castle, 26 W.R. 876. (lviii.) C. A.-Staying Proceedings-Pending Appeal-Ord. 58, rr. 16, 17.-An
application to stay proceedings pending an appeal must be made first to the judge of the Court below.--Attorney-General v. Swansea Improve
ments Co., 26 W.R. 840. (lix.) C. A.-Substituted Service--Setting Aside Judgment—Ord. 9, r. 2.-In
an action against A. and others an order for substituted service against A. having been obtained, and judgment against all the defendants given, A. applied to set aside the judgment against him on affidavits, alleging ignorance of the action while pending and merits : judgment was set aside op terms as to giving security for the amount of the judgment
and for costs.-Watt v. Barnett, 38 L.T. 903. (lx.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Trial—Jury.-In an action against directors for
fraud and misrepresentation, a motion by one defendant to have the action tried before a judge and jary was refused, on the grounds that the other defendant did not consent, and that, under the circumstances, such a trial did not appear desirable or convenient.—Mirehouse v. Barnett,
47 L.J. Ch. 689. (Ixi.) C. A. Trial-Jury. - Where parties to an action agree to take
evidence by affidavit, the Court will not, on the application of either party, grant a' jury after evidence has been taken.—Brooke v. Wigg,
L.R. 8 Ch. D. 510; 47 L.J. Ch. 749. (lxii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Writ of Possession-Writ of Assistance--Ord 48.
--Under Order 48 a writ of possession is now substituted for the writ of assistance both between parties and as against strangers to the action.
Hall v. Hall, 47 L.J. Ch. 680. Principal and Agent :(i.) P. C.-Commission Agent.--Held, on the evidence, that A. was the
agent of B.--Hood v. Stallybrass, Balmer & Co., L.R. 3 App. 880; 38
L.T. 826. (ii.) Q. B. Div.-Corrupt Bargain--Bias.- Where a bargain is made
between one who is in the employ of another and a third party, who bas contracted with the employer, which is calculated to bias the mind of the employed and cause him to act to the prejudice of the employer, such bargain is corrupt, even though no damage result to the employer.
- Harrington v. Victoria Graving Dock Co., L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 549; 47 L.J.
Q.B. 594. (iii.) Ch. Div. F. J.--Payment to Agent-Set-off of Debt.-Where A. owes
money to B., and B. authorises him to pay it to C., he must actually pay the money to C., and is not entitled to set-off a debt due to him from c. against the payment of the debt to A.-Pierson v. Scott, 47 L.J. Ch. 705 ;
26 W.R. 796. (iv.) Ch. Div. F. J.--Settled Accounts --Right to Surcharge and Falsify
Costs.-In an action for account by a principal against his agent, plaintiff showed five itens of error in order to surcharge and falsify a series of settled accounts : defendant set up no such right in the pleadings, but claimed it at the bar : Held that plaintiff was entitled to surcharge and falsify all the accounts, but defendants were not so entitled.-Mozley v. Cowie, 38 L.T. 908; 26 W.R. 854.