Finden v Stephens
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 August 1847 |
| Date | 02 August 1847 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 60 E.R. 787
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Costs. Motion. New Orders.
[40] finden v. stephens. August 2, 1847. Costs. Motion. New Orders. The costs of an interlocutory proceeding are not costs of the suit. Petition by the Plaintiff, for leave to except to the report of the Taxing Master who had allowed the Defendant the costs of preparing to resist a motion in the cause for an injunction. On the motion being brought on, the Court, at the Defendant's request, ordered it to stand over until a certain day, in order to enable the Defendant to answer an affidavit in support of it. Before that day arrived the Defendant filed a demurrer to the whole bill for want of equity; which the Vice-Chancellor overruled, but the [41] Lord Chancellor, on appeal, allowed, and, pursuant to the 45th Order of May (1) The reporter abstained from reporting the cases mentioned in the note to Creed v. Perry, because the decisions in them were generally considered unsound. 788 IN RE MORRISON 16 BIB. 42, 1845, ordered the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant the costs of it and the costs of the suit also. - Mr. Bethell and Mr. Moxon, in support of the petition, said that the costa of an interlocutory application were not coats of suit. They referred to the rules laid 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)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goring v Howard
...into the consideration how far the other branch of the contingency might have been [403] supported which V.-C. v.-30 930 ARNOLD V. ARNOLD 16 SIM. 40*. could only come in question in case Richard had survived both hia parents. Now, though there is that observation to be made on this case whi......
-
Eccles v Liverpool Borough Bank
...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 penalt......
-
Stevens v Keating
...Lord Chancellor, 12th April 1848 (not reported)), in which the Lord Chancellor reversed a decision of the Vice-Chancellor [662] of England (16 Sim. 40), it was held that the costs of an interlocutory proceeding were costs of the suit. Mr. Rolt and Mr. Follett, contra, relied upon the rule a......