Betts v Clifford
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 April 1860 |
| Date | 25 April 1860 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 70 E.R. 667
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Davies v. Marshall, 1861, 4 L. T. 105; Mounsey v. Earl of Lonsdale, 1870, L. R. 6 Ch. 144.
Costs. Motion for Injunction. Costs in Cause. Third Counsel.
[74] betts v. clifford. April 25, 1860. [See Dames v. Marshall, 1861, 4 L. T. 105; Mounsey v. Earl of Lonsdale, 1870, L. K. 6 Ch. 144.] Costs. Motion for Injunction. Costs in Cause. Third Counsel. On a bill to restrain the infringement of a patent, a motion for injunction was ordered to stand over until after the trial of an action, nothing being said about costs. In the action the Plaintiff succeeded on the issue as to the infringement, but failed in establishing the validity of his patent. The bill was afterwards dismissed with costs. Held, that the Defendant's costs of the motion were costs in the cause. Circumstances under which the costs of a third counsel will be allowed. This bill was filed by a patentee to restrain an alleged infringement of the patent. The bill stated that the Plaintiff had previously filed a bill against other Defendants for infringements of the same patent, and on 21st March 1857 obtained an injunction therein; and that an action, Setts v. Menzies, had been tried in that matter, when a verdict was found establishing the validity of the patent, and a rule nisi for a new trial was subsequently granted. Actions had also been brought by the Plaintiff against the present Defendants. On January llth, 1858, the Plaintiff moved for an injunction, when the motion was ordered to stand over until the trial of the action, with liberty to apply. This order was never drawn up. The Plaintiff abandoned his 668 BETTS V. CLIFFORD IJ. & H. 75. original action, and commenced a new one against the Defendants, which resulted in a verdict being found for the Defendants on the validity of the patent, and for the Plaintiff on the fact of the infringement. The Plaintiff failed on an application to the Court of law for a new trial. On December 8th, 1858, on the Defendants' application, the bill was dismissed with costs for want of prosecution. In taxing the Defendants' costs, the Taxing Master allowed the costs of opposing the motion for injunction, and the costs of bringing into the Court a third counsel, Mr. Hindmarsh, who had been retained at law in the action against the Defendants and also in Setts v. Menzies. The Plaintiff put in evidence the notes of the summing up and the shorthand-writer's note of the whole of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davies v Marshall
...(Kay, 1); Bacon v. Jones (1 Beav. 389 ; '4 My. & Or. 433); The Rochdale Canal Company v. King (2 Sim. (N. S.) 78); Setts v. Clifford (1 Johns. & H. 74). . the vice-chancellor [Sir E. T. Kindersley] (without calling for a reply, said :)-Notwithstanding the able arguments for the Defendant, I......
-
Cloran v Lord Clancarty
...CLORAN and LORD CLANCARTY. Collis v. stuart 6 Ir. Jur. 51. Betts v. CliffordENR 1 J. & H. 74. Pearce v. LindsayENR 1 Johns. 702. CHANCERY REPORTS, BEING A SERIES OF CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY, COURT OF APPEAL IN CHANCERY, pits gout, faiat6 estates court, AND C......