Cowper v Scott. Cowper v Elphinstone. Cowper v Tufnell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 November 1757 |
| Date | 19 November 1757 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 28 E.R. 590
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Angell v. Davis, 1839, 4 My. & Cr. 364.
[17] cowpee v. scott. cowper v. elphinstone. cowper . tufneix. November 19, 1757. [See Angell v. Davis, 1839, 4 My. & Cr. 364.] An appeal or rehearing for costs only, allowed under particular circumstances. An original and two supplemental bills considered but as one cause, and therefore but one deposit necessary,-S. C. Sew. MSS. 1 Bro. C. C. 141. This was a petition presented by Fawcett, a defendant in the three suits, for a rehearing, after a decree made in these causes bearing date the 30th of October 1753 ; and costs being the only matter in dispute, it was objected by Wilbraham and de Grey, for the plaintiff, that there could not be a rehearing for costs only. The Attorney-General, Mr. Willes, and Mr. Capper, in support of the petition. There is a difference where there is a decree for costs charged on the person (for there the general rule is that there can be no rehearing for costs only), and where the costs are directed to come out of the estate. In Owen v. Griffith (1 Ves. sen. 250; Amb. 520), the only ground of appeal was that the defendant was ordered to pay costs ; and two questions were made on the hearing, first, whether the rule is so general that a party can in no case appeal for costs ; and secondly, whether, as the defendant was an incum-brancer, the estate was not as much liable to pay the costs as the debt. The Lord Chancellor declared, that the rule was not so general with respect to parties appealing for costs only. That in particular cases such rule might and had been dispensed with ; and his Lordship, thinking that it might be dispensed with in that case, reversed so much of the decree as related to costs. [18] The Lord Keeper. An appeal or rehearing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Donald Campbell and Company, Ltd and Others v Pollak
-
Willis v Yates
...of the decree stajids. But all the cases, even those where such appeals succeeded, as Jenour v. Jenour, 10 Ves, 562 ; Couiper v. Scott, 1 Eden, 17 ; Owen\, Griffith, 1 Ves. sen. 250, plainly state that the rule is general, though not absolutely inflexible, and that the special circumstances......
-
Wirdman v Kent
...see the decree actually made by Lord Hardwicke on the appeal, stated in the Editor's late edition of Vesey, sen. 1 vol. 250, note. See 1 Eden, 17. English Reports Citation: 28 E.R. 1040 APPEAL FROM THE ROLLS.Wirdman against Kent S. C. 2 Dick. 594; S. P. Williams v. Begnon, ibid. 595 wiedma......