Cash against Wells
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1830 |
| Date | 01 January 1830 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 826
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
See Anlaby v. Prtorius, 1888, 20 Q. B. D. 769.
cash against wells. 1830. The application for setting aside a judgment as against good faith, is ex debito justitise, and the Court will not impose on the defendant, as a condition for setting it aside, that he bring no action. [See Anlaby v. Prcetorius, 1888, 20 Q. B. D. 769.] In this case White had obtained a rule, calling upon the plaintiff to shew cause why the judgment and subsequent proceedings should not be set aside as against good faith, with costs. The bad faith complained of, was a breach of the terms imposed by a cognovit given by the defendant, which restrained the plaintiff from signing judgment unless default were made in payment of a bill of exchange falling due on the 4th of June. The payment of the bill was punctually made on that day, notwithstanding which the plaintiff subsequently signed judgment, issued a fieri facias, and seized the defendant's goods. Brodrick could not resist the rule; but he prayed the Court to impose on the defendant as a condition, that he should not bring any action. He relied on affidavits attributing the plaintiff's proceedings to mistake, and cited Larimer v. Lule (1 Chitty's 1 B. & AD. 376. THE KING V. COMRS. UNDER COCKERMOTJTH INCLOSUBE ACT 827 Rep. 134), where, on setting aside proceedings for irregularity, the Court restrained defendant from bringing an action of trespass. [376] White refused to accept the terms. Bayley J. We cannot impose them without the defendant's consent. He applies to us ex debito justitise, to have proceedings set aside which are against good faith. We are not compelled, however, to give him the costs of his rule; and, unless he will consent not to bring any action, we make this rule absolute without costs. Brodrick afterwards elected...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- KAR Ramanathan Chetty v Tan Cheng Hoo and Another
-
Gailey v Conlan
...(N. S.) 364. Tilly v. NewmanUNK 12 Ir. L. R. 71. Sillem v. Shaw Alc. & Nap. 31. Magan v. Johnson 4 Ir. Jur. (O. S.) 261. Cash v. WellsENR 1 B. & Ad. 375. Cooper v. GrantENR 12 C. B. 154. practice Setting aside judgment Power to impose terms Restraining the Defendant from bringing an action.......
-
Dinh Phuc Cong v NT Construction Accounting Service Pty Ltd
...Service Pty Ltd Respondent REPRESENTATION: Counsel: Appellant: Ms McLaren Respondent: Mr Alderman Cash v Wells (1830) 1 B & Ad 375; 109 ER 826; Chitty v Mason [1926] VLR 419; St George Bank Ltd v O'Reilly (1999) 150 FLR 27; Saunders v Hammond [1965] QWN 39; Sullivan v Henderson [1973] 1 Al......
-
Loton against Devereux
...no power to deprive the defendant in that action of the costs which he has incurred in consequence of the bad judgment. Cash v. Wells (1 B. & Ad. 375), shews that the setting aside proceedings, in cases like the present, is not a matter in the discretion of this Court, and that it will not ......