Becquet and Others against Mary Mac Carthy, Executrix of M. S. J. Mac Carthy
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1831 |
| Date | 1831 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 1396
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Referred to, Meyer v. Ralli, 1876, 1 C. P. D. 370; Rousillon v. Rousillon, 1880, 14 Ch. D. 371. Distinguished, Sirdar Gurdyal Singh v. Faridkote, (1894) A. C. 670. Discussed, Emanuel v. Symon, (1907) 1 K. B. 240; (1908) 1 K. B. 306.
[951] becquet and others against mary mac carthy, Executrix of M. S. J-Mac Carthy. Thursday, Nov. 24th, 1831. To render a foreign judgment void, on the ground that it is contrary to the law of the country where it was given, it must be shewn clearly and unequivocally to be so. Where the law of a British colony required that, in a suit instituted against an absent party, the process should be served upon the King's Attorney-General in the colony ; but it was not expressly provided that the Attorney-General should communicate with the absent party : Held, that such law was not so contrary to natural justice, as to render void a judgment obtained against a party who had resided within the jurisdiction of the Court at the time when the cause of action accrued, but had withdrawn himself before the proceedings were commenced. [Eeferred to, Meyer v. Balli, 1876, 1 C. P. D. 370; Rmsillm v. Rousillon, 1880, 14 Ch. D. 371. Distinguished, Sirdar Gurdyal Singh v. Faridkote, [1894] A. C. 670. Discussed, Emanuel v. Symon, [1907] 1 K. B. 240; [1908] 1 K. B. 306.] This was an action on a judgment obtained by the plaintiffs against the testator in the Court of the Tribunal of First Instance in the island of Mauritius. Plea, the general issue. At the trial before Lord Tenterden C.J., at the London sittings after Trinity term 1830, the judgment of the Colonial Court was proved. In the introductory part of the judgment, the cause was stated to be between Madame Becquet, (the present plaintiff,) and others, residing at Port Louis, plaintiffs, and Mr. Mac Carthy, Deputy Paymaster of His Majesty's Forces, " at present resident at the Cape of Good Hope, cited at the domicile of the substitute of the King's Attorney-General in the Tribunals and Courts of this colony," defendant; and the Paymaster-General of His Majesty's Forces, also defendant. It further appeared, by the minute (b) Keg. Gen. M. t. 1 G. 4, 4 B. & A. 196. 2B.&AD. 952, BECQUET V. MAC CARTHY 1397 of the Court, that the plaintiffs had caused the defendants in that suit to be cited to appear before the Tribunal of First Instance on the 16th of December 1816, to answer the plaintiffs touching a fire which they alleged to have broken out in the paymaster's office, and consumed a house and premises and other property of the plaintiffs; and that the plaintiffs prayed the said Tribunal that the defendants might be ordered to admit or deny that the fire first broke out in the paymaster's office, and spread from thence till it destroyed the plaintiffs' premises and goods : and, in case of their admitting the same, that Mac Carthy individually, and likewise the administration of paymaster, might be condemned, jointly and severally, [952] under the 1384th article of the code of laws of the colony, to reimburse to the plaintiffs their damages and costs; or, in case of denial, that an order of the Court might be made for proofs to be adduced, whereupon a report might be made in form of law, and a decision had. The minute then stated, that on the cause coming on for hearing on the 16th of December 1816, default was granted against Mac Cartby, and the cause remanded to the 5th of May following, during which time it was ordered that the party in default should be re-cited. It was then stated, that by a writ served on the 21st of December 1816, the sentence above mentioned was judicially notified to the defendants, with a citation to'appear on the 5th of May 1817, and that on that day, the Court, by its sentence, granted a definitive default against Mae Carthy (he not appearing, nor any one for him), and ordered that the documents and readings of the parties appearing should be communicated to the substitute of the King's Attorney-General, together with the notes of the pleadings, in order to the necessary decree being made. This sentence, it was stated, the plaintiffs caused to be notified to the defendants. The point for the adjudication of the Tribunal was stated to be, whether the administration of the Paymaster-General of British Forces was reponsible for the loss arising from the quasi crime imputed to the superintendant of such administration, under the 1384th article of the code, and whether the conclusions and condemnations prayed against the said administration, and against Mac Carthy personally, were well founded 1 The Tribunal, by its judgment given on the 9th of February 1818, (and on which the present action was brought) condemned Mae...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New Falmouth Resorts Ltd v James N. Phelan
...(3) 14 Ch. D. 351, at p. 371 where the defendant in the character of plaintiff has selected the forum in which he is afterwards sued; (4) 2 B. & Ad. 951 where he has voluntarily appeared; and (5) L.R. 6 Q.B. 155 at p. 159 where he has contracted to submit himself to the forum in which the j......
- Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Persekutuan v Tenaga Nasional Bhd
- Bintang Garment Supplier Sdn Bhd v Hytex Intergrated Berhad
-
Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 SCR 1077
...v. Megson (1987), 19 B.C.L.R. (2d) 300; Singh v. Rajah of Faridkote, [1894] A.C. 670; Becquet v. Mac Carthy (1831), 2 B. & Ad. 951, 109 E.R. 1396; Schibsby v. Westenholz (1870), L.R. 6 Q.B. 155; Re Dulles' Settlement Trusts, [1951] 2 All E.R. 69; Harris v. Taylor, [1915] 2 K.B. 580; In ......