Cavan and Another v Stewart
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 December 1816 |
| Date | 30 December 1816 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 551
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Considered, Gavin Gibson & Co. v. Gibson, [1913] 3 K B. 379.
Monday, December 30, 1816. cavan and another v. stewart. (If a colonial Court possess a seal, it must be used for the purpose of authenticating a judgment of the Court, although it is so much worn as no longer to make any impression. A party here is not bound by a colonial judgment, unless it appear either that he was summoned, or it be proved that he was once resident within the jurisdiction , and it is not sufficient that on the face of the proceedings he is described to be a,n absentee.) [Considered, Gavin Gibson, & Co. v. Gibson, [1913] 3 K B. 379 ] This was an action of assumpsit brought to recover a balance of 1441, 3s. as money had and received by the defendant to the use of the plaintiffs, the defendant having paid into Court the sum of 1385, 19s. 9d. The plaintiffs were West India merchants, and established a pnma facie case, by proving an admission on the part of the defendant of his having received on their account in the West Indies monies to the amount claimed. [526] The defence was, that this balance had been attached in the hands of the defendant by a j'udguient of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Jamaica, upon a process of foreign attachment, on account of a debt due from the plaintiffs to Bogle, Hamilton, and Scott of Jamaica. It was proposed to prove the judgment in the following manner First, It was proposed to prove by a certificate signed by the Duke of Manchester, the governor of the island to which the great seal of the island was appended, that William Buller was secretary of the island, and notary public Secondly, By a certificate under the hand of William Buller, as such notary public, that F. Smith, Esquire, who had signed and sealed the copy of the judgment annexed, was the clerk of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Jamaica Thirdly, It was proposed to read a document which purported to be a true copy of a judgment obtained by Bogle and Others against Stewart, as the garmshee of the plamtifts, in the sum of 2096 ; which alao purported to have been signed and sealed by Smith The documents thus attested purported to be proceedings in the Grand Court of Judicature in the island of Jamaica. They recited that complaint had been made by Bogle and Others, that James and Michael Cavan of the island of Barbadoes, merchants, absentees from the island (of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maubourquet v Wyse
...M. & Gr. 882. Russell v. SmythENR 9 M. & W. 810. Cown v. Braidwood 1 M. & Gr. 882. Reynolds v. FentonENR 3 c. B. 187. Cavan v. StewartENR 1 Stark. 525. MacCarthyENR 2 B. & Ad. 951. Becquet v. MacCarthy Ibid. Buchanan v. RuckerENRENR 3 Camp. 63; 9 East. 192. Douglas v. ForrestENR 4 Bing. 686......
-
James Clark, Assignee of Thomas Shepherd, a Bankrupt, - Appellant; Baboo Rouplaul Mullick, - Respondent; and by revivor between James Clark, - Appellant; Sree Mutty Doorgamoney Dossee, Executrix; Prawnkissen Mullick, and Sreekissen Mullick, Executors of Baboo Rouplaul Mullick, deceased, - Respondents
...competent authority, and in a case within the jurisdiction of the Court. Buchanan v. Eucker (9 East, 192. 1 Camb. 63), Cavan v. Stewart (1 Starkie, 525). The rule, that in a suit between parties, both domiciled in England, on a contract made by them in a Foreign country, the remedy to be ta......
-
109 ER 1396
...to justice that a man should be condemned unheard ; on which head Buchanan v. Rucker (1 Camp. 63. 9 East, 192), and Cavan v. Stewart (1 Stark. N. P. 525), were cited. Lord Tenterden reserved the points ; and the plaintiff proved that, by the law of the island, whenever an action was commenc......
-
Douglas and Another, Assignees of Stein and Smith, Bankrupts, v Forrestt, Executor of James Hunter
...which it should run. Buchanan v. Sucker (1 Campb, 63. 9 East, 192), Williams v. Lord [693] Bagot (3 B. & C. 772), and Cavan v. Stewart (1 Stark. 525), were cited on the first point, and Murray v. East India Company (5 B. & A. 204), on the second ; but a verdict was taken for th& Plaintiffs,......