Campbell v Hall
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1774 |
| Date | 01 January 1774 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 98 E.R. 1045
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY AND COMMON PLEAS
S. C. Lofft, 665; see Sottomayor v. De Barros, 1879, 5 P. D. 106; West Rand Central Gold Mining Company v. Rex [1905], 2 K. B. 406.
campbell versus hall. 1774. [S. C. Lofft, 655 ; see Sottwnayffr \. De Barros, 1879, 5 P. D. 106 ; fFesfHand/f3. Central Gold Mining Company v. Rex [1905], 2 K. B. 406.] This case was very elaborately argued four several times; and now on this day Lord Mansfield stated the case, and delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court, as follows: This is an action that was brought by the plaintiff James Campbell, who is a natural born subject of this kingdom, and who, upon the 3d of March 1763, purchased a plantation in the island of Grenada: and it is brought against the defendant [205] William Hall, who was a collector for His Majesty of a duty of four and an half per cent, upon all goods and sugars exported from the island of Grenada. And the action is brought to recover back a sum of money which was paid, as this duty of four and an half per cent., upon sugars that were exported from the island of Grenada, by and on account of the plaintiff. The action is an action for money had and received ; and it is brought upon this ground; namely, that the money was paid to the defendant without any consideration; the duty, for which, and in respect of which he received 1046 CAMPBELL V. HALL 1 COWP. 208. it, not having been imposed by lawful or sufficient authority to warrant the same. It is stated by the special verdict, that that money still remains in the hands of the defendant, not paid over by him to the use of the King, but continued in his hands, and so continues with the privity and consent of His Majesty's Attorney General, for the express purpose of trying the question as to the validity of imposing this duty. It came on to be tried at Guildhall, and of course, from the nature of the question, both sides came prepared to have a special verdict; and a special verdict was found, which states as follows. That the island of Grenada was taken by the British arms, in open war, from the French King. That the island of Grenada surrendered upon capitulation, and that the capitulation on which it surrendered, was by reference to the capitulation upon which the island of Martinique had before surrendered. The special verdict then states some articles of the capitulation, and particularly the 5th article, by which it is agreed, that Grenada should continue to be governed by its present laws until His Majesty's further pleasure be known. It next states the 6th article ; where, to a demand of the inhabitants of Grenada, requiring that they should be maintained in their property and effects, moveable and immoveable, of what nature soever, and that they should be preserved in their privileges, rights, honors, and exemptions; the answer is, the inhabitants, being subjects of Great Britain, will enjoy their properties and privileges in like manner as the other His Majesty's subjects in the other British Leeward Islands : so that the answer is, that they will have the consequences of their being subjects, and that they will be as much subjects as any of the other Leeward Islands. Then it states another article of the capitulation; viz. the 7th article, by which they demand, that they shall pay no other [206] duties than what they before paid to the French King; that the capitation tax shall be the same, and that the expences of the Courts of Justice, and of the administration of government, should be paid out of the King's demesne: in answer to which they are referred to the answer I have stated, as given to the foregoing article; that is, being subjects they will be entitled in like manner as the other His Majesty's subjects in the British Leeward Islands. The next thing stated in the special verdict is, the treaty of peace signed the 10th February, 1763; and it states that part of the treaty of peace by which the island of Grenada is ceded; and some clauses which are not at all material for me to state. The next instrument is a proclamation under the Great Seal, bearing date the 7th of October, 1763, wherein amongst other things it is said aa follows : Whereas it will greatly contribute to the speedy settling our said governments, of which the island of Grenada is one, that our loving subjects should be informed of our paternal care for the security of the liberties and properties of those who are and shall become inhabitants thereof: we have thought fit to publish and declare by this our proclamation, that we have in our letters patent under our Great Seal of Great Britain, by which the said governments are constituted, given express power and direction to our governors of the said colonies respectively, that so soon as the state and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wong, Wen-Young v (1) Grand View Private Trust Company Ltd, (2) Transglobe Private Trust Company Ltd
...without the need for a formal proclamation imposing it: see R v Vaughan (1769) 4 Burr. 2494, 98 ER 308 at 2500, 311; Campbell v Hall (1774) 1 Cowper 204, 98 ER 1045 at 212, 1049; Roberts-Wray, Commonwealth and Colonial Law (1966) at 542, 3. This is the conclusion reached in relation to the ......
-
Delgamuukw et al. v. British Columbia et al., (1993) 30 B.C.A.C. 1 (CA)
...385, refd to. [para. 349]. Sobhuza II v. Miller, [1926] A.C. 518 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 365]. Campbell v. Hall, [1774] All E.R. 52; 98 E.R. 1045; 1 Cowp. 204 (K.B.), refd to. [paras. 369, Freeman v. Fairlie (1828), 1 Moo. Ind. App. 305; 18 E.R. 117 (L.C.), refd to. [para. 369]. Lyons Corp.......
-
R. v. Caron (G.) et al., 2014 ABCA 71
...121]. Ex parte Chavasse (1865), 4 De. G.J. & S. 655; 46 E.R. 1072 (Ct. Ch.), refd to. [para. 134]. Campbell v. Hall (1774), Lofft 655; 98 E.R. 1045 (K.B.), refd to. [para. Ross River Dena Council Band et al. v. Canada et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 816; 289 N.R. 233; 168 B.C.A.C. 1; 275 W.A.C.......
-
Newfoundland v. Drew et al., 2003 NLSCTD 105
...(1993), 30 B.C.A.C. 1; 49 W.A.C. 1; 104 D.L.R.(4th) 470 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1074, footnote 855]. Campbell v. Hall (1774), 1 Cowp. 204; 98 E.R. 1045 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 1081, footnote 861]. Kielley v. Carson (1842), 4 Moo. P.C.C. 63; 13 E.R. 225 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 1084, footnote......
-
Table of Cases
...Steam Collieries (1891) Ltd v Pontypridd Waterworks Co [1903] AC 426, 72 LJKB 805, 89 LT 280 111–114, 116, 120, 123 Campbell v Hall (1774) 1 Cowp 204, (1774) 20 State Tr 239, Lofft 655, 98 ER 1045 250, 252 Carlton v Goodman [2002] EWCA Civ 545, [2002] 2 FLR 259 215 Case of Fines Coke 3 Inst......
-
Table of Cases
...B.C.J. No. 1524, 2000 BCSC 1123 ............................................................... 504 Campbell v. Hall (1774), 1 Cowp. 204, 98 E.R. 1045, [1558–1774] All E.R. Rep. 252, 20 State Tr. 239 (K.B.) ................................................ 34, 35 Campbell-Bennett Ltd v. Coms......
-
Edward John Eyre and the conflict of laws.
...about the powers of the Jamaican legislature. Its status as a settled colony was confirmed in Campbell v Hall (1774) 1 Cowp 204; 98 ER 1045, where Mansfield CJ held that Jamaica's English inhabitants were entitled to be regarded as British subjects. However, Willes J expresses some doubt on......
-
ENGLISH STATUTES IN SINGAPORE COURTS
...(1608) 7 Co. Rep. 1a; 77 E.R. 377 and Blankard v. Galdy(1693) 4 Mod. Rep. 215; 87 E.R. 356. 48 (1722) 2 P. Wms. 74; 24 E.R. 646. 49 (1774) 1 Cowp. 204; 98 E.R. 1045. 50 (1870) Leic. 466. Cf., however, Ee Hoon Soon v. Chin Chay Sam(1889) 1 S.L.J. 147. 51 (1870) Leic. 466, at p. 469. 52 5 Geo......