Chambres v Edward Jones, John Foulkes, William Morris, and Robert Jones
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 April 1850 |
| Date | 19 April 1850 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 98
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 19 L J Ex 239 Approved, Penfold v West, 1864, 9 L T 650, 12 W R 340
[229] ghambres t edward jones, john foulkks, william morris, and robert jones April 19, 1850 -The fst and Jnd sections of the stat If & 12 Viet c 91, do not transfer the personal liability of overseeis, foi debts contracted for legal proceedings relating to parish business, to their successors in office [S C 19 L J Ex 239 Approved, Pen/old v West, 1804, 9 L T 650, 12 W R 340 ] Assumpsit for work done as an attor riey, for money paid, and on an account stated The;defendant ) Moiria and Robert .lories pleaded (rnter aha) iron assumpserunt, the oth jr defendants suffered judgment by default At the tual of the cause, before Cre^swell, J, at the last Assizes for Fhntshiie, the following facts appeared -The plaintiff was an attorney, and the defendants were the churchwardens and over seers of Tryddyn, in the couirty of Flint, and the action was brought for business done by the plaintiff aa an attorney, in the matter of an appeal against an order for the lemoval of certain paupers from Ellesmere to Tiyddyn, made in Jarmaiy 1847, the plaintiff conducting the business under the veibal instructions of the then palish othceis of Tryddyn The plaintiff, in 1848, made out his bill ag unst the paush toi the business done, and had it taxed, but it was arranged that, as a case granted by the Quarter Sessions, on the tnal of the appeal, then stood for the oprnron of the Court of Queen's 6 EX. 230 SKELTON V MOTT 99 Bench, the payment of his bill should be defeired On May 30, 1849, the caw \\ is decided by that Court, and the plaintiff rleliveied his bill to the defendants The defendants came into office in April 184') The defendant Foulkes was also in office in 1847, and was one of the paities who authonsed the business The defendants Morns and Robeit Jones were also in office in the yeai 1848-& During then term of office, a vestry waa held, and a resolution was come to, and enteted in the vestry-book, authorising the payment of the plaintiff's demand Upon this state of facts, it whs contended, on the part of the defendants Morns and .Robert Jones, that the defendants were not all jointly liable, inasmuch as they had not jointly retained the plain tiff or authorised the [230] business done by him, and churchwardens and ovet-seers could not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen at the prosecution of Charles Sedley v Henry Lyons and Others, Commissioners for The Town and Harbour of Sligo
...of PrestonENRUNK 12 C. B. 108; 21 L. J. C. P. 146. Bolton v. The Guardians of the Mallow Union 8 Ir. C. L. R. App. 9. Chambres v. JonesENR 5 Exch. 229; 19 L. J. Exch. 239. Bush v. BeavanENR 1 H. & C. 500; 32 L. J. Exch. 54. The Conservators of the River Tone v. Ash 10 B. & Cr. 349. Colquhou......