Cox and Others v The Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Councillors of the City of London
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 July 1863 |
| Date | 04 July 1863 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 159 E.R. 166
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S C. 32 L. J. Ex. 282, 11 W. R. 969: affirmed 1867, L. R. 2 H. L 239. See Frith v. Guppy, 1866, L. R 2 C. P 37, Duke of Buccleuch v Metropolitan Board of Works, 1870, L. R 5 Ex. 230. reversed 1872, L R. 5 H L 418, Banque de Crdit Commercial v. De Gas, 1871, L. R. 6 C. P. 142; Byrne v Guano Consignment Company, 1872, 25 L. T. 937, Cooke v Gill, 1873, L. R. 8 C P. 107. Robinson v Emanuel, 1874, L. R 9 C. P. 416, Worthington v. Jeffires, 1875, L. R 10 C. P. 381, Jacobs v. Brett, 1875, L. R. 20 Eq 5; Chambers v. Green, 1875, L R 20 Eq. 555; London Jornt Stock Bank v. Mayor of London, 1875, 1 C. P. D. 13, 1881, 6 A. C. 418, Bridge v. Branch, 1876, 1 C P. D. 637; Hawes v. Paveley, 1877, 1 C P. D. 418, Oram v. Brearey, 1877, 2 Ex. D. 348; Serjeant v. Dale, 1877, 2 Q. B D 568, Appleford v. Judkins, 1878, 3 C P D. 491, Atwood v. Sellar, 1879, 4 Q B D. 363, Combe v. De la Bere, 1883, 22 Ch. D. 325; Chadwick v. Ball, 1885, 14 Q. B D 857, R. v. Shronshire County Court Judge, 1888, 20 Q B. D. 247, Broad v Perkins, 1888, 21 Q. B. D. 534, British South Africa Company v. Companhia de Mocçambique, [1893] A. C. 602; Farquharson v. Morgan, [1894] 1 Q. B. 552, Watson v. Petts, [1899] 1 Q B. 430; Falkingham v. Victorian Railway Commissioners, [1900] A C 452, Devonshire v Foot, [1900] 2 Ir. R. 211; McIntosh v. Simpkins, 1900, 17 T. L. R. 11; R. v. Tristram, [1902] 1 K. B. 816; R. v. Enniskillen Urban District Coucil, [1902] 2 Ir. R. 456, Norwich Corporation v Norwich Electric Tramways, [1906] 2 K. B. 119.
166 COX V. THE MAYOR, ETC., OP LONDON 2 H & C 402 in the exchequer chamber. (Error from the Court of Exchequer ) Cox and others o. the lord mayor, aldermen, and common councillors of THE city OF LONDON. July 4, 1863 -A writ of foreign attachment from the Lord Mayor's Court of the city of London was served within the city on the garnishee, who thereupon applied to a superior Court foi a piohibition on the ground of want of jurisdiction, when it appeared by the pleadings that none of the parties were citizens or resident in the city, and neither the onginal debt nor that due from the garnishee accrued within the city. Held, in the Exchequer Chamber. first, that the garnishee was entitled to a writ of prohibition and was not bound to appear in the Lord Mayor's Court and there plead the want of jurisdiction, assuming he could plead such a plea.-Secondly, that the writ ought to prohibit the garnishment only, as the 20 & 21 Viet, c civil, restrained the defendant in the suit from objecting to the jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor's Court, except by plea in that Court.-Qusare : whether a garnishee in the Lord Mayor's Court can plead any other plea than " nil habet." [S C. 32 L. J. Ex. 282, 11 W. R. 969: affirmed 1867, L. R. 2 H. L 239. See Frith v. Guppy, 1866, L. R 2 C. P 37 , Duke of Biicdeuch v Metropolitan Board of Works, 1870, L. R 5 Ex. 230 . reversed 1872, L R. 5 H L 418 , BawLw tie Credit Commercial v. De Gas, 1871, L. R. 6 C. P. 142 ; Byine v Guano Consignment Company, 1872, 25 L. T. 937, Cooke v GtH, 1873, L. R. 8 C P. 107 Robinson v Enumuel, 1874, L R 9 C. P. 416, Worthmgtmi v. Je/,ies, 1875, L. R 10 C. P. 381 , Jacobs v. Brett, 1875, L. R. 20 Eq 5; Chambers v. Gteen, 1875, L R 20 Eq. 553 ; London Joint Stock Bank v. Mayor of London, 1875, 1 C. P. D. 13 , 1881, 6 A. C. 418 , Budge v. Branch, 1876, 1 C P. D. 637; Hawes v. Paveley, 1877, 1 C P. I). 418, Cham v. Brearey, 1877, 2 Ex. D. 348; Setjeant v. Dale, 1877, 2 Q. B D 568, AppU/oid v. Judkins, 1878, 3 C P D. 491 , Atwood v. Sellat, 1879, 4 Q B D. 363, Combe v. De la Bete, 1883, 22 Ch. D 325; Chadwick v. Ball, 1885, 14 Q. B I) 857, R. v. 8hwp,hne County Couit Judge, 1888, 20 Q B, D. 247 , Bwad v PeiUm, 1888, 21 Q. B. D. 534, British South Africa Company v. Companhia de Mozambique, [1893] A. C. 602; Farguha.r&on v. Morgan, [1894] 1 Q. B. 552 , Wahon v Petts, [1899] 1 Q B. 430; Falkingham v. Victorian Railway Commtsstonei s, [1900] A C 452, Devonshire v Foot, [1900] 2 Ir. R. 211; Mclntoth v. Snnplins, 1900, 17 T. L. R 11; A v. Tristram, [1902] 1 K. B. 816; R. v...
To continue reading
Request your trial