Ford's Hotel Company, Ltd, v Bartlett

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
CourtHouse of Lords
Judgment Date02 December 1895
Judgment citation (vLex)[1895] UKHL J1202-1
Date02 December 1895
Ford's Hotel Company, Limited,

[1895] UKHL J1202-1

House of Lords


After hearing Counsel for the Appellants, as well on Friday last as this day, upon the Petition and Appeal of Ford's Hotel Company, Limited, of 14, Manchester - street, Manchester - square, Loudon, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 9th of April 1895, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of Herbert Henry Bartlett (trading as Perry & Co.), lodged in answer to the said Appeal; (in which said Appeal the questions of the admissibility of certain documents included in the Appendix, and of the costs of the Petition of the Respondent, relating thereto, presented on the 20th day of June last, were, by an Order of this House of the 5th day of July last, reserved to the hearing of the Appeal at the Bar), and Counsel appearing for the Respondent, but not called on; and due consideration had of what was offered for the Appellants:


It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 9th of April 1895, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
1 books & journal articles
  • Civil Procedure
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2001, December 2001
    • 1 December 2001
    ...and Hotels, Limited v Knowles[1902] 1 KB 480; Williams v The Society of Lloyd”s[1994] 1 VR 274; Ford”s Hotel Company, Limited v Bartlett[1896] AC 1). The reason is that the difference between a step in the proceedings which is essential to the defendant and one which is not essential to him......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT