Bonsey v Wordsworth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 May 1856 |
| Date | 06 May 1856 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 139 E.R. 1395
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 25 L. J. C. P. 205; 2 Jur. N. S. 494; 4 W. R. 566.
bonsey v. wordsworth. May 6, 1856. [S. C. 25 L. J. C. P. 205; 2 Jur. N. S. 494; 4 W. K. 566.] The plaintiff was a butcher carrying on his business within the jurisdiction of the county-court of A. The defendant resided within the jurisdiction of the county-court of B. The plaintiff sued the defendant in the superior court for a bill, some of the items of which consisted of goods which had been ordered in the A. district, but delivered in the B. district:-Held,-confirming Grvnibley v. Aykroyd and Wood v. Perry,-that the whole formed one " cause of action," and, as a part of it arose in the jurisdiction within which the defendant resided (and within 20 miles), there was no concurrent jurisdiction within the 9 & 10 Viet. c. 95, s. 128, and consequently the plaintiff was not entitled to costs. Honyman, in Hilary Term last, obtained a rule calling upon the defendant to shew cause why the master should not be at liberty to tax and "allow the plaintiff the costs of this action. The rule was obtained upon the affidavit of the plaintiff, who deposed that he was a butcher and poulterer, and dwelt and resided, and carried on his business in High Street, Uxbridge, in the county of Middlesex, within the district of the county-court of Middlesex holden at Uxbridge; that the defendant at the time the action was brought dwelt and resided, and still resided, [326] at Pond Farm, Seer Green, near 1396 BONSEY V. WORDSWORTH 18 C. B. 327. Chalforit, in the county of Buckingham, which is situate within the district of the county-court of Buckingham holden at High Wyeombe; that the action was brought to recover 1QL, balance of a bill of exchange for 201. bearing date at Uxbridge on the 5th of June, 1855, and accepted by the defendant, payable at the Old Bank, Uxbridge, and interest thereon, and also to recover 71. 18s., balance of a bill for butcher's meat supplied to the defendant by the plaintiff; that the Old Banky Uxbridge, is situate in the district of the Uxbridge county-court; that all the orders for the delivery of such meat were given, and the meat purchased, weighed, and delivered at the plaintiff's house in Uxbridge, to the servants of the defendant, or persons having- his authority to receive the same, with the exception' of certain portions of the same, which were purchased and ordered at the plaintiff s shop at-Uxbridge, and sent from his said shop at Uxbridge to his'shop at Chalfont, and there delivered to the .servants of the defendant, or persons sent by him for the same; that the action .was tried before the sheriff of Middlesex on the 29th of November last, -whn ,a verdict was found for the plaintiff for 181,. Is. 4d.; and that the defendant^ at the .time th^s action was brought, did not dwell or carry on his business at any other place than Pond Farm aforesaid. He submitted, that, for a portion of the cause of action, the plaintiff undoubtedly might have brought his action in the superior court; and that he did not lose that right by joining with it a cause of action for which a plaint might have been entered in the county-court. And he referred to the 9,& 1.0 Viet. c. 95, ss. 128, .129, and to the cases of Butler v. Corney, 2 Exch. 477, 6 D. & E. 45, Dodd y?Wigley,wte, vol. vii., p. 106, IVood v. .Perry, 3 Exch. 442,; Borthwick,, App., Walton, Resp., ante, vol. xv., p. 501, and Hernamqn v. Smith, 10 Exch. 659. ..'ò';. [327] Carter shewed cause (a). In order to entitle him to succeed upon this motion, the plaintiff must shew that the action was brought for a cause for which concurrent jurisdiction is reserved to the superior courts by the 128th section of the 9 & 10 Viet. c. 95, that is, that " the cause of action did not arise wholly or in some material .point within the jurisdiction of the court within which the defendant dwelt or carried on .his business at the time of the action, brought." [Jervis, C. J. Part of .the cause of action was within the jurisdiction of the High Wyeombe court; but part of the meat account was recoverable in the Uxferidge court, part having been ordered and delivered out of the jurisdiction in which, the defendant'resides.] The case of Wood v. Perry, 3, Exch. 442, is precisely in point. It was there held, that, where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v Bennett
...v. M'Donnell 13 Ir. C. L. App. 8. Devine v. The London and North-western Railway Company 10 Ir. Jur. N. S. 26. Bonsey v. WordsworthENR 18 C. B. 325. Enright v. Kavanagh 15 Ir C. L. 142. Alexander v. JonesELR L. R. 1 Exch. 133. Dawson v. Coleman 10 Ir. Jur. N. S. 75. Tudor v. LawsonUNK 15 Ir......
-
Romans v Barrett
... ... was try be merged into the succeeding one to eventually create one cause of action, or one account which should be the last et cetera); Bonsey v. Wordsworth (1856) 18 C.B. 325, 139 E.R. 325 ; these cases rest on the implied agreement between the parties to treat the account as a running ... ...
-
Jackson v Grimley
...that the plaintiff was not entitled to costs. (a)- And see Wood, v. Perry, 3 Exch. 442, (i D. & L. 194, and Boimey v. Words-worth, 18 C. B. 325. 16 C. B. (S. 8.) 385. JACKSON V. GRIMLEY 1177 of the cause of action. [Byles, J. Suppose the authority had been to execute a deed,-which must be c......
-
Copeman v Hart
...of action in some material point arises within that jurisdiction." The same rule is laid down by this court in Bonse.y v. Wordsworth, 18 C. B. 325. There, the plaintiff was a butcher carrying on hia business within the jurisdiction of the county-court of A. The defendant resided within the ......