Farquharson v Pitcher
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 March 1828 |
| Date | 08 March 1828 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 38 E.R. 897
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
[510] farquharson v. pitcher. March 8, 1828. Where a Defendant dismisses a bill for want of prosecution, without having made a motion of which he had given notice, the Plaintiff cannot afterwards obtain an order for the payment of the coats of that motion, as being a motion abandoned. In this case, the Defendant, having put in his answer, gave notice of a motion to dissolve an injunction which had been obtained : but, in consequence of the state of business in the Court, it stood over from time to time, so that, before it had been made, he was in a condition to dismiss the bill for want of prosecution. Accordingly, an order of dismissal was obtained, as of course. On the 5th of June 1827, the Plaintiff moved to discharge the order of dismissal as irregular ; and on the 27th of the same month, the LordChancellorreiused the motion with costs. (See 3 Russell, 383.) On the same day, the Plaintiff obtained an order of course that the Defendant should pay the costs of the motion to dissolve the injunction, as being a motion which he had abandoned. The Defendant now moved to discharge that order with costs, for irregularity. Mr. Home and Mr. Swanston, in support of the application, argued, that the order of dismissal put an end to every proceeding in the suit; that no subsequent step could be taken, except for the purpose of carrying into...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Newby v Harrison
...as is now asked for after the dismissal of a bill and while no suit is pending; Wright v. Mitchell (18 Ves. 293); Farquharsm v. Pitcher (4 Russ. 510). Mr. Morris, in reply. the Loan justice knight bruce. With the most respectful deference to the Judge from whose Court this case comes, I am ......
-
Finden v Stephens
...down by Sir John Leach relative to coats (1 Sim. & Stu. 357), and to Lewis v. Armstrong (3 Myl. & Keen, 69} and Farguharson v. Pitcher (4 Russ. 510). Mr. Stuart and Mr. Bazalgette, for the Defendant, cited Dugdale v. Hare (5 Hare, 92). the vice-chancellor [Sir L. Shadwelll The Lord Chancell......