Corder v The Universal Gas-Light Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 1848 |
| Date | 24 November 1848 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 136 E.R. 1223
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
[190] corder 0, the universal gas-light company. May 29, 1848. The ten days' notice required by the 7 & 8 Viet. c. 110, s. 68, to be given prior to an application for leave to issue execution against a shareholder, must state whether the application is intended to be made to the court, or to a judge at chambers.- After an unsuccessful application to a judge at chambers, an original motion cannot be made to the court, founded upon the same notice.-The jurisdiction at chambers is limited to the judges of the court in which the judgment is obtained. The plaintiff, having obtained judgment in an action in this court against the Universal Gas-Light Company, caused the following notice, under the 7 & 8 Viet, c. 110, s. 68, to be served upon the,several persons therein named:- "Whereas, a judgment was obtained on the 3rd day of February instant, in Her Majesty's court of Common Pleas, for the sum of 1101. damages, and 1051. 19s. 2d. costs, in a certain action brought by the above-named plaintiff against the above- named defendants, being a company completely registered under an act made and passed in the seventh and eighth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, intituled ' An Act for the registration, incorporation, and regulation of joint-stock companies;' and whereas the said plaintiff hath used due diligence to obtain satisfaction of the said judgment against the property and effects of the said company; but there is not any property, nor are there any effects of the said company Out of which the said judgment, or any part thereof, can be satisfied: And whereas, you, Edmund Boulter, James Shayler, Joseph Field, Dominique Causse, Joseph Eeplow, Edward Suter, Henry Alt, and Anthony Kent, some or one of you, were respectively shareholders or a shareholder in the said company at the time when the contract or engagement with the above-named plaintiff, for which the said judgment was obtained, was entered into, or became shareholders or a shareholder during the time the said contract or engagement remained unexecuted or unsatisfied, or were re-[191]-speetively share holders or a shareholder at the time the said judgment was obtained: Now, we do hereby give you notice, that, upon the expiration of ten days from the date of the service of this notice upon you, some, or one of you, or as soon after the expiration thereof as conveniently may be, a motion will be made in Her Majesty's court of Common Pleas, or an application to one of the judges thereof, for a rule, or summons, calling upon you, some, or one of you, to shew cause why execution should not issue against you, some, or one of you, upon the same judgment, until the same shall be satisfied. Dated, this 8th February, 1848. " G. & H., attorneys for the above-named plaintiff. " To Edmund Boulter, James Shayler, Joseph Field, Dominique Causse, Joseph Replow, Edward Suter, Henry Alt, and Anthony Kent." In pursuance of; the above notice, a summons was taken out before Parke, B., at chambers, calling upon Dominique Causse and another of the parties therein named, to shew cause why execution should not issue against them. Upon the summons coming on to be heard, the learned Baron held that he had no jurisdiction, the statute only authorising the application to be made to the court in which the judgment is obtained, or to a judge thereof. Phipson, in the last term, obtained a rule' nisi against Dominique Causse, in the same terms as the above summons. Talfourd, Serjt., now shewed cause. The notice of motion does not comply with the statute: it neither [192] states the character in which the party called upon is 1224 CORDER V. THE UNIVERSAL GAS-LIGHT COMPANY 6C.B.193. sought to be charged,-whether as a present or as a former shareholder in the company; nor does it specify either the time when, the place where, or the person against whom, the application is to be made. It is altogether in the alternative. And, further, the notice has already been exhausted, by the previous application to Parke, B. This is not an appeal from the decision of that learned judge, but an original application. Consequently, it is a motion to the court, without any previous ten days' notice to warrant it. The proceedings under this'statute should be conducted with more than ordinary strictness and particularity. Phipson, in support of his rule. The notice of motion is sufficient. The 3rd section of the statute defines a "shareholder" to be, one who is entitled to a share in the concern, and who has executed the deed^ of settlement. The 66th section (as)1 authorises a party [193] who has obtained a judgment against the company, to proceed against three different classes of shareholders, viz. shareholders for the time being, shareholders at the time of the contract, and shareholders at the time of the judgment: and the 68th section (a)2 provides for the notice of motion. The objection (a)1 Which provides " that every judgment and every decree or order which shall be at any time after the passing of this act obtained against any company completely registered under this act, except companies incorporated by act of parliament or charter, or companies the liability of the members of which is restricted by virtue of any letters-patent, in any action, suit, or other proceeding prosecuted by or against such company in any court of law or equity, shall and may take effect and be enforced, and execution thereon be issued, not only against the property and effects of such company, but also, if due diligence shall have been used to obtain satisfaction of such judgment, decree, or order, by execution against the property and effects of such company, then against the person, property, and effects of any shareholder for the time being, or any former shareholder of such company, in his natural or individual capacity, until such judgment, decree, or order shall be fully satisfied: provided, in case of execution against any former shareholder, that such former shareholder was a shareholder of such company at the time when the contract or engagement for which such judgment, decree, or order may have been obtained, was entered into, or became a shareholder during the time such contract or engagement was unexecuted or unsatisfied, or was a shareholder at the time of the judgment, decree, or order being obtained: provided also, that, in no case shall execution be issued on such judgment, decree, or order, against the person, property, or effects of any such former shareholder of such company, after the expiration of three years next after the person sought to be charged shall have ceased to be a shareholder of such company." (a)'2 Which enacts "that, in the cases provided by this act for execution on any judgment, decree, or order, in any action or suit against the company, to be issued against the person or against the property and effects of any shareholder or former shareholder of such company, or against the property and effects of the company, at the suit of any shareholder or former shareholder, in satisfaction of any moneys, damages, costs, and expenses paid or incurred by him as aforesaid in any action or suit against the company, such execution may be issued, by leave of the court, or of a judge of the court, in which, such judgment, decree, or order shall have been obtained, upon motion or summons for a rule to shew cause, or other motion or summons consistent with the practice of the court, without any suggestion of *scire facias in that behalf; and that it shall be lawful for such court or judge, to make absolute-or discharge such rule, or allow or dismiss such motion (as the case may be), and to direct the costs of the application to be paid by either party, or to make such other order therein as to such court or judge shallseem fit; and, in such cases, such form of writs of execution shall be sued out of the courts of law and equity respectively, for giving effect to the provision in that behalf aforesaid, as the judges of such courts respectively shall, from time to time, think fit to order; and the execution of such writs shall be enforced in like manner as writs of execution are now enforced : provided, that any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bendy v Harding, Official Manager of the Royal British Bank
...When this matter was before the learned judge at chambers, reliance was placed upon a ease of Corder v. The Universal Gas-Light Company, 6 C. B. 190, the marginal note of which states the court to have decided that the notice must shew whether the application is intended to be made to the c......