Bartlett and Another against Pentland, Secretary of the St. Patrick Assurance Company of Ireland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 January 1831 |
| Date | 14 January 1831 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 948
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
baetlett and another against pentland, Secretary of the St. Patrick Assurance Company of Ireland. Friday, January 14th, 1831. By statute 5 Gr. 4, c. clx., s. 1, all actions brought against the St. Patrick Assurance Company of Ireland are to be prosecuted against the secretary for the time being or against any member of the company as the nominal defendant for them and on their behalf. By section 4 execution upon any judgment'in such action may be issued against any member or members for the time being of the company. By section 8, in case such execution against the members for the time being shall be ineffectual, the party so having obtained judgment may issue execution against any person who was a member at the time the contract was entered into upon which such action may have been brought; but no such execution is to be issued without leave of the Court: Held, that a party who had brought an action and obtained judgment against the secretary, could not lawfully issue execution against another member of the company without having previously, by leave of the Court, suggested on the record facts to shew that the party against whom he so issued execution was liable as a member of the company. Wherever, by the provision of an Act of Parliament, a person not a party to the record is to be affected by a judgment, or where the judgment is to be such as would not be ordinarily warranted by the previous proceedings on the record, the proper course is to enter a suggestion on the roll; so that the party to be affected may demur if the plaintiff do not set forth facts to bring the case within the Act of Parliament, or that he may traverse those facts if untrue. The plaintiffs obtained judgment against the defendant as the Secretary of the St. Patrick Assurance Company of Ireland, according to the form of the statute 5 G-. 4, c. clx., for 9641. damages, and, without entering any suggestion on the record, (a) See 1 Deacon's Bankrupt Law, c. 9, sect. 8, p. 214. 1R&AD.705. BARTLETT V. PENTLAND 949 or applying to the Court for leave, sued out a ea. sa. reciting [705] that the plaintiffs had recovered judgment against the St. Patrick Assurance Company in the name of Robert Pentland, their secretary, for 9641. damages sustained by the plaintiffs, as well by reason of the non-performance of certain promises, &c. &c. made by the said St. Patrick Assurance Company, as for costs, whereof the said St. Patrick Assurance Company of Ireland, in the name of the said Robert Pentland, their secretary, were convicted, &c. The writ then proceeded, " We command you that you take Sir A. B. King, Baronet, one of the members of the said company, if he be found in your bailiwick, and him safely keep," &c. Sir A. B. King having been taken in execution upon this writ, a rule nisi had been obtained for setting aside the execution, upon the ground that the plaintiffs were not warranted by the judgment obtained against Pentland as the nominal defendant on behalf of the company, in suing out a ca. sa. against Sir A. B. King, without having first, by leave of the Court, suggested on the record that he was a member of that company (a). [706] Campbell and Maule on a former day in this term shewed cause. Assuming that Sir A. B. King was a member of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v Bennett
...146. Preston v. Peeke Ell. Bl. & Ell. 336. Bagot v. WilliamsENR 3 B. & C. 237. Thorpe v. CooperENR 5 Bing. 129. Bartlett v. PentlandENR 1 B. & Ad. 704, 710. Barton v. Hunter 1 Hud. & Br. 569. Hickman v. ColleyENR 2 Strange, 1120. Watson v. QuilterENR 11 M. & W. 761. Chapman v. SpeerUNK 8 Ir......
-
Hitchins v The Kilkenny and Great Southern and Western Railway Company, Re Emery
...here, it is sought to affect with the judgment against the company, persons who are not parties to the record : see Bartlett v. Pentland (1 B. & Ad. 704); Bosanqmt v. Ransford (11 Ad. & E. 520, 3 P. & D. 298); Cross v. Law (6 M. & W. 217); Whittenbury v. Law (6 N. C. 345, 8 Scott, 661). [Wi......
-
Bartholomew v Carter
...unless the judge, before whom the trial shall be, shall certify his approbation of the action and of the verdict obtained thereupon." (Vf 1 B. & Ad. 704. See Bosanquet v. Eansford, 11 A. & E. 520, 3 P. & D. 298; Cross v. Law, 6 M. & W. 217; Harwoodv. Law, 7 M. & W. 203; WhiMenbwrg v. Law, 6......
-
Paulet against Nuttall and Law, two of the Public Officers of the Imperial Bank of England
...Follett and E. James; and Wightman supported the rule. Arguments against the rules. The application is grounded on Bartlett v. Pentland (1 B. & Ad. 704), where the plaintiff, having signed judgment against the secretary (a)1 See Eex v. Stakes, 2 M. & S. 71. (of November 25th. Before Lord De......