Eccles v Liverpool Borough Bank
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 July 1859 |
| Date | 29 July 1859 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 70 E.R. 478
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Practice. Abandoned Motion. Costs.
[402] eccles v. liverpool borough bank. July 29, 1859. Practice. Abandoned Motion. Costs. Semble, it is too late to ask for the costs of an abandoned motion at the hearing. Certainly too late on speaking to the minutes. Notice of motion having been given, the motion was ordered to stand over to a day named. In the interval the bill was amended, a new notice given, and the original motion was not again brought on. Held, that this was an abandoned motion. This cause was put into the paper to be spoken to on the minutes upon a question of costs. JOHNS. 403. NORTH LONDON RY. CO. V. METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS 479 It appeared that a notice of motion for injunction had been given on the 26th of February 1858, and, without having been argued, was ordered to stand over to a given day. In the interval the bill was amended; a new notice [403] of motion was given on the 18th of December 1858, and the original motion was never again brought on. The Defendants did not apply for the costs of the first motion as of an abandoned motion. The second motion came on, together with a motion for decree, on the 31st of May 1859, when the bill was dismissed with costs; but the question as to the costs of the first motion was not raised. Mr. Kay, for the Defendants, now asked for a direction in the minutes that the costs of the first motion might be included in the Defendants' costs. The Defendants could not make any interlocutory application as to these costs, because the motion had been so far brought on as to be ordered to stand over, and was not, in fact, an abandoned motion. He referred to Dugdale v. Johnson (5 Hare, 92), Finden v. Stevens (16 Sim. 40 ; and, on appeal, 12 Jur. 319) and Stevens v. Keating (1 Mac. & G. 659). Even if this were considered as an abandoned motion, the only penalty for not making the application for costs at the proper time is that they cannot afterwards be obtained by interlocutory application. There is nothing in the practice to prevent a party who has neglected to apply within the prescribed time from getting his costs at the hearing. (Order 5th August 1818, Daniell's Practice, 1202.) Sir H...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Betts v Clifford
...stands over and is abandoned, the costs are not costs in the cause, and cannot be allowed at the hearing: Ecdes v. Liverpool Borough Bank (Johns. 402). Though we failed in the cause, there are many reasons on which, upon that motion, if it had been heard, the Defendants might have been refu......