Glen v Lewis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 May 1853 |
| Date | 07 May 1853 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 1290
COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S C 22 L J Ex 24l, 16 Jur 1121
G-LEN v lewis Nov 4, 1832 -A defendant obtained a Judge's order foi leave to plead several matters, but at the time the ordei was obtained, he was not enabled to draw up the rule, the Rule Office being then closed He deliveied the pleas, \vith notice that the rule would be drawn up and delivered as soon as it could be obtained On the morning of the following day, the tune for pleading having expired, the plaintiff signed judgment as for want of a plea -Held, that the judgment was regular [S C 22 L J Ex 24, 16 Jur 1121 J Karslake moved for a lule, calling on the plaintiff to shew cause why the interlocutory judgment signed herein should not be set aside for irregularity, and why the rule to plead several matteis should not stand, and why the pleas authonsed to he pleaded should not be re-delivered, without any further summons 01 older to plead several matters The action was commenced in the early part of July last, and the declaration wa& served on the J2nd of that month On the 30th, a summons for leave to plead &e [l33]-^eral matters was taken out, but no application was made foi further time to plead, On the ,11st, the summons was heard before h Judge at Chambers, both sides atteudrng , and the otrler was made, but at too late arr hour foi the rule to be drawn up that day, as the office was then closed The defendant seived the order upon the pLuntirtt the same evening, the time foi pleading expning upon that day, and the pleas were delivered with a notice, that the rule would be drawn up and served as soon as it could be obtained from the office On the '2nd of August, the Monday foliowrng, at eleven A M, the plaintiff signed judgment as for want of a plea The defendant pursued the proper course, and the judgment was iriegularly signed Irr Maynard v. Bright (3 Biod & Bing 256) it was held that where a defendant, under a rule nisi for that purpose, files pleas of several matteis, annexing to the plea a copy of the uile nisi, indorsed with a notice that a rule absolute to plead seveial matteis will be served as soon as it is diavvri up, the plaintiff may not sign judgment as for want of a plea, if the time for pleading should expire befoie the rule absolute be obtained That is an express authoiity in the defendant's favour, and that mode of practice appeals to be the correct one, by reference to 1 Tidd Piac 9th ed 657, and 1 Chit Arch '200 [Alderson, B In all the numerous eases which have come before me at Chambers, the invariable practice has been, where the defendant has not time to draw up the rule to plead several matters, to apply to have the time for pleading enlarged The defendant might and ought to have done so in this case Pollock, C B, lefeired to W'tikes v Ottky (2 Nev & P 99) J P |)LLO(JK, C B The course the plaintiff adopted was perfectly correct, and therefore, upon the point of nregu-[134] lanty, there wrll be no rule The defendant, howefer, may take a rule nisi, upon the production of an affidavit of merits, and on payment of costs., othei wise Itjile refused (a) The rest of the Couit concurred (a) See the Common Law Procedure Act, 15 & 16 Viet c 76, s 81
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 1494
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 22 L J Ex 228, 17 Jur 842
[607] exchequer reports easter term, 10 Vici G-LKN a le\\ (M May 7, 1853-The plaintiff effected an insurance against hie on his stock, by a policy which contained the following (among othei) conditions - "That if, in the building insured ot containing any piopetty insured, shall be used any steam-engine, stove, &c, or any description of hte-heat othei than common file-places, or any process of tire-heat be cairied on therein, the same must he noticed and allowed on the policy , and if any omission 01 misrepresentation take place, the policy is void In case of any circumstance happening after an insurance has been effected, whereby the nsk shall in any way be increased, tbe insured is required to give notice thereof to the Company, and the same must be allowed by indorsement on the policy, otherwise the policy is void En case of any alteration being made in a building insured, ot containing any property insured, or of any steam, sfceam engine, stove, &c , or any other tlesct iption of fire-heat being introduced, notice theieof must be given, and every such alteration must be allowed by indorsement on the policy, and any further premium which the alteration may occasion must be paid , and unless such notice be given, such premium paid, and such indorsement made, no benefit will anse to the insutecl ill case of loss " The plaintiff, who was a cabinet-maker, erected on his piemises a brick furnace or boiler, to which he attached a small steam-ongine, for the purpose of faying whether it was worth his while to buy the engine to use in his business On one occasion a fire was lighted and the engine set to woik, when it was found to be wholly unfit for the puipose foi which the plaintiff taquired it A few days afterwards a fire broke out on the plaintiff's premises, by which his stock was consumed No notice was given to the Company -Held, that the plaintiff could notieeovei on the policy, since the teims of the conditions 8 EX.808 GLEN 1' LEWIS 1495 applied to the intioduction of a steam-engine m a heated state at any time, without notice to the Company , and that it made no ditteience whethet it was used by way of experiment 01 as an approved mode of caitying on the business, 01 whethei it was used foi a longei 01 a shoitei time [S C 22 L J Ex 228, 17 Jur 842 j Assumpsit on a policy of insurance, against the aecietaiy of the " West of England Fite and Life Insurance Company," undei the piovisions of the 4 Will 4, c xxxvn The declaration stated, that by a policy of insuiance made by and on behalf of the Company, and signed by thiee of the dnectors, after lecitmg that the plaintiff, a wood-tuiner and cabinet-maker, had paid to the Company Al l(is, and had agieed to pay at Christinas in each year the annual piemium of 31 10s during the con tin nance of the policy foi insunng against loss ot damage by fire, on stock manufactnied, unmanufactured, and in process, in his workshops and offices adjoining and communicating, brick built, tiled, [608] 01 slated, situate &c , 8001 ; and aftei reciting that two small stoves were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fearnley v London Guarantee and Accident Insurance Company
...Sanderson v. AstonELR L. R. 8 Ex. 73. Anderson v. FitzgeraldENR 4 H. L. C. 484. Traill v. Baring 4 De G. J. & Sm. 318. Glen v. LeuisENR 8 Exch. 607. Sillem v. ThorntonENR 3 E. & B. 868. Phillips v. FoxallELR L. R. 7 Q. B. 666. Sanderson v. AstonELR L. R. 8 Exch. 73. Lee v. JonesENR 17 C. B.......
-
Stokes v Cox and Others
...be lead most strongly against the assurers), no alteration will vitiate the policy unless it increases the risk In Crlcn [332] v. Leioi* (8 Exch. 607) there was an absolute prohibition against any alteration being made in a building insured, or any steam, steam-engine, stove, 01 any other d......
-
Post-Contract Disclosures in Insurance Law
...the Common Law Courts to grant orders for 43 (1843) 6 Man. & G.l; 134 E.R. 784. 44 (1983) 31 W.I.R. 162. 45 See e.g. Glen v. Lewis (1853) 8 Ex. 607; 155 E.R. 1494; Marzouca v. Atlantic and British Commercial Insurance Co. Ltd. [1971] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 449. 46 (1985-1986) 4 NSWLR 107. Page ......