Bailey, Assignee of Callis, an Insolvent Debtor, v Chitty
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 654
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 5 Dowl P. C. 307; 2 Gale, 224; 6 L. J. Ex. 19.
[28]j bailey, Assignee of Callis, an Insolvent Debtor, . chitty. Kxch. of Pleas, |1836.-A plaintiff is liable to costs under the Middlesex Court of Requests Act, 23 Geo. 2, c. 33, s. 17, where he recovers less than 40s., though his claim was reduced below that sum by the statute of limitations being pleaded.-But where the declaration was in debt for work and labour', and it appeared that the work and labour consisted of the levying of an execution by the plaintiff', as a broker, on the goods of a party resident in Surrey :-Held, that this was not cognizable by the Court of Requests, though the defendant resided in Middlesex. [S. C. 5 Dowl. P. C. 307; 2 Gale, 224; 6 L. J. Ex. 19.] Tiis was an action of debt for goods sold and delivered, and work and labour don6j by the insolvent; arid on an account stated between the insolvent and the defendant. Th$ defendant pleaded, first, nunquarn indebitatus ; seoondly, the statute of Hi litations; iand thirdly, a set-off. At the trial, at the Middlesex sittings after last tsrm, the plaintiff' proved the sale and delivery of a chest of drawers for 31. by the i isolvent to the defendant; and also work done by the insolvent as a broker, in 2M.&W29. BAILEY V. CHITTY 655 levying a distress on the goods of a tenant of the defendant; at his residence at flichmond, in Surrey. The defendant produced a bill of parcels furnished by the plaintiff, from which it appeared that the sale and delivery of the chest of drawers took place in the year 1829; and the plaintiff had a verdict only for 11. 19s. 9d. debt (the amount of the claim for the levy), and Is. damages. The defendant was resident in Middlesex. Platt had obtained a rule to shew cause why a suggestion should not be entered on the roll, in order to deprive the plaintiff of his costs, under the Middlesex Court of Requests Act, 23 Geo. 2, c. 33. Miller shewed cause. There are three answers to this application. First, the debt due was, in truth, above 40s., although, in consequence of the plea of the statute of limitations being pleaded, it has been cut down on the trial to a smaller sum. It is not a case, therefore, in which the plaintiff could have brought his action in the inferior Court. It falls within the principle of the cases in which the act has been held not to apply to the case of a claim reduced...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woodhams v Newman
...Jenkinson v. Morton (1 M. & W. 300, Tyrwh. & G. 676, 5 Dowl. P. C. 74, on the Middlesex act, 23 G, 2, c. 33, s. 19), Bailey v. Ghitty (2 M. & W. 28, 5 Dowl. P. C. 307, on the Middlesex act, 23 G. 2, c. 33, s. 19). In Jones v. Harris (1 Dowl. P. C. 374, on the Middlesex act, 23 G. 2, c. 33, ......