Charrington v Meatheringam and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 740
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 5 Dowl. P. C. 464; 6 L. J. Ex. 86; M. & H. 30; 1 Jur. 104.
gharrington v. mratheeungam and another. Exch. of Pleas. 18:37.-By the 5 & fi Will. 4, c. 50, the 13 Geo. ,'i, c. 78, which gave treble costs to parties sued for anything done in pursuance of the act, on a nonsuit, was repealed, the new act giving, in such case, costs only as between attorney and client. A plaintiff, who sued parish officers for an act done under the 13 Geo. 3, c. 78, became nonsuit at a trial which took place before the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 50, came into operation, but judgment was not signed till after:-Held, that the defendants were not entitled to treble costs. [S. C. 5 Dowl. P. C. 464; G L. J. Ex. 86; M. & H. 30; 1 Jur. 104.] In this case, [reported ante, p. 142], it having been discovered, after the former rule was made absolute, that the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 50, which repealed the 13 Geo. 3, c. 78, did not come into operation until some days after the trial of the cause, viz. on the 20th of March, 1836, N. Clarke obtained a rule nisi to rescind the former rule, and to review the taxation, on the ground that the right to treble costs became vested by the nonsuit, although the judgment was not signed until after the repeal of thie act by which they were given. '. Miller arid Hurlstone shewed cause. The question turns on the construction to be; put upon the terms of the 13 [229] Geo. 3, c. 78, s. 81, which provides that actions for acts done in pursuance of the act shall be commenced within three calendar months, that the defendant may plead the general issue, and give that act and the special matter in evidence, and that if the plaintiff shall become nonsuit, the defendant " shall and may recover treble costs." The costs cannot be said to he recovered but by the judgment. The trial at nisi prius is for the purpose of informing the Court in bane on the facts, in order that the Court may afterwards, upon the postea, give judgment on those facts according to the existing law. Here it appears on the postea that the plaintiff'did not appear to prosecute his suit; on that entry the Court would have to give such judgment as was warranted by the then existing law. The plaintiff's default is a mere fact, which being recorded, and returned into this Court, the Court gives judgment for the defendant to recover accordingly. The form of an entry of judgment for. treble costs under a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mercer v O'Reilly
...v. LeonardENR M. & M. 297. Towler v. ChattertonENR 6 Bing. 265. Freeman v. MoyesENR 1 Ad. & El. 338. Charrington v. MeatheringhamENR 2 M. & W. 228. Edwards v. LawleyENR 6 M. & W. 285. Cornill v. HudsonENR 8 El. & Bl. 437. Doe v. BramstonENR 3 Ad. & El. 63 Doe v. TurnerENRENR 7 M. & W. 226; ......
-
Wright v Hale
...and that decision was acted upon in Pteknp v. Wharton (2 C. & M. 401, 406) and Gmnt v. Kemp (2 C * M. 636) Chm-ringtjn v. Meathennffham (2 M. & W 228) is an authority that a claim to treble costs under a statute existing at the commencement of a suit is riot a vested right; and Cox v. Thoma......
-
Hitchcock against way
...Tindal C.J. observes (p. 895) upon the caution to be used in construing a statute retrospectively. In Gharrington v. Meatfigringham (2 M. & W. 228), the Court was desired to award costs under a repealed statute, which it clearly could not do. It is stated, in 7 Bac. Abr. 439, Statute (C) (7......
-
Cassidy v O'Loghlen
...Before BALL, C., DEASY and FITZ GIBBON, L.JJ. CASSIDY and O'LOGHLEN Watton v. Watton L. R. 1 P. & M. 227. Charington v. MeatheringhamENR 2 M. & W. 228. Cox v. ThomasonENR 2 Cr. & J. 498. Pinhorn v. SonsterUNK 21 L. J. Ex. 336. Hitchcock v. Way 6 Ad. & Ell. 943. Garnett v. BradleyELR 3 App. ......