Hardy v Hull
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 July 1853 |
| Date | 29 July 1853 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 1071
ROLLS COURT
See Proud v. Bates, 1866, 35 L. J. Ch. 342.
[355] hardy v. hull. July 29, 1853. [See Proud v. Bates, 1866, 35 L. J. Ch. 342.] The Plaintiffs were ordered to pay to the Defendant so much of the costs " as had been occasioned " by one object of the suit, and a decree was made with costs as to the other objects. The Taxing Master considered the suit to be for two objects, and allowed the Plaintiff one-half only of the general costs common to both. Held, that he was right. After an administration suit had been wound up, the executors received a debt of £403. The Plaintiffs thereupon instituted this second suit, whereby they claimed the whole of that sum as part of the estate; but at the hearing, they admitted that one-half only belonged to the testator. By the decree in 1846 the Master was directed to take the account of subsequent receipts; and it was ordered that the Plaintiffs should pay to the Defendants so much of their costs of the suit " as had been-occasioned by the Plaintiffs setting up a claim to the whole of the said debt." By the decree on further directions, made in 1852, it was referred to the Taxing Master to tax the Plaintiffs " their costs of this suit, except so much thereof as had been occasioned by the Plaintiffs setting up a claim to the whole of the debt," and such costs, after deducting the former costs, were to be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs. The Master taxed the costs on the following principle :-He considered the suit instituted for two objects, and that one had succeeded and the other failed. He then examined the pleadings, briefs and other papers in the suit, and found that nineteen folios thereof related exclusively to the claim of the whole debt, and that the rest related, generally, to both the objects of [356] the suit. He then taxed the whole amount of the Plaintiffs' costs of the suit (except as to the nineteen folios), at £419, from which he then deducted £126 (being one moiety of the Plaintiffs' costs up to the hearing of the cause in 1846), and £112 (being one moiety of the Defendants' costs of the suit up to the decree of 1846), leaving a balance of £180 to be allowed to the Plaintiffs as their costs of suit. The Plaintiffs, insisting that the Master had proceeded on an erroneous principle, presented this petition for liberty to except. Mr. Roupell and Mr. J. H. Taylor, in support of the petition. Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Berkeley, contra...
To continue reading
Request your trial