Fewster v Boogett
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 November 1841 |
| Date | 11 November 1841 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 9
EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS.
S. C. 1 Dowl. (N. S.) 406; 11 L. J. Ex. 8. Referred to, Myers v. Phelan, 1890, 26 L. R. Ir. 218. Discussed, Quinn v. M'Kinley, [1902] 2 Ir. R. 323.
FXWSJTBR . BociGETT. Exch. of Pleas. Nov. 11, 1841.-In an action of debt, in \fhich the Writ of aummoiiH was indorsed for 57, the defendant pleaded, as to all but 19i, payment; as to the =19, payment into Court. At the trial he proved payment to the plaintiff of all the debt beyond the 19 ; but it appeared tpat a sum 0f 13 was paid after action brought. The verdict was thereupon entered for 13, the plaintiff undertaking to suu out execution for the costs only :- Ex. Div. viii.-1* 10 KENRICK V. DAVIES 9 M. & W. 21. Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to costs to be taxed on the scale applicable to a recovery of a sum above 20. [3. C. 1 Dowl. (N. S.) 406; 11 L. J. Ex. 8. Referred to, Myers v. Phelan, 1890, 26 L. R. Ir. 218. Discussed, Qmnn v. M'Kinley, [1902] 2 Ir. R. 323.] Knowles moved for a rule to shew cause why the Master's taxation in this case should not be reviewed. It was an action of debt. The writ of summons was indorsed for 571. 2s. 7d. The defendant pleaded, as to all but 191. 12s. 8cl., payment; aa to that sum, payment into Court. At the trial before Lord Deimian, C. J., at the last York Assizes, the defendant proved payment of the difference between the above sums; but it appearing that a sum of 13 had been paid after the commencement of the action, the learned judge directed a verdict to be entered for the plaintiff for nominal damages. The plaintiff's counsel then applied to his lordship to certify that it was a fit [21] cause to be tried at the Assizes, but he refused the application. On the following day, the plaintiff's counsel applied to have the verdict entered (or 13, undertaking not to issue execution for the debt, but only for the costs. This was done, and the plaintiff's undertaking was indorsed on the Nisi Prius record. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Myers v Phelan and Others
...Telephone CompanyELR 13 Q. B. Div. 597. Coughlan v. Morris UNK 6 L. R. Ir. 405. Berdan v. Greenwood 3 Ex. Div. 251. Fewster v. BoggettENR 9 M. & W. 20. O'Rorke v. M'Donnell 13 Ir. C. L. R. App. 8. Coock v. MaltbyUNK 23 L. J. Q. B. 305. James v. VaneUNK 29 L. J. Q. B. 169. Dixon v. WalkerENR......
-
Donnelly v Verschoyle
...(5) 17 I. C. L. R. 195. (6) 1 H. & C. 615. (7) I. R. 3 C. L. 373. (8) I. R. 5 C. L. 412. (9) 4 I. C. L. R. 314. (10) 11 C. B. 524. (11) 9 M. & W. 20. (12) [1902] 2 I. R. 315. (1) 4 I. C. L. R. 314. (2) I. R. 5 C. L. 412. (3) I. R. 5 C. L. 568. (4) I. R. 6 C. L. 161. (5) 26 L. R. Ir. 218. (6......
-
Arkins v Armstrong
...v. HiggsENR 15 C. B. N. S. 790. Smith v. HarnorENR 3 C. B. N. S. 829. Hughes v. GuinnessUNK 4 Ir. C. L. R. 314. Fewster v. BoggettENR 9 M. & W. 20. Wallen v. SmithENR 3 M. & W. 138. Parr v. LillicrapENR 1 H. & C. 615. Boulding v. TylerENR 3 B. & S. 472. Robertson v. Sterne 13 C. B. N. S. Ri......
-
Leonard v Brownrigg
...TuckerENR 1 H. & N. 500. O'Rorke v. M'Donnell 13 Ir. C. L. R. App. viii. Hughes v. GuinnessUNK 4 Ir. C. L. R. 314. Fewster v. BoggettENR 9 M. & W. 20. Arkins v. ArmstrongUNK Ir. R. 3 C. L. 373. Walsh v. Walsh 11 Ir. Jur. N. S. 378. Owens v. Vanhomrigh 10 Ir. Jur. N. S. 297. Doyle, Appellant......