Harris against Saunders

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of the King's Bench
Judgment Date21 June 1825
Date21 June 1825

English Reports Citation: 107 E.R. 1112


Harris against Saunders

S. C. 6 D. & R. 471; 3 L. J. K. B. O. S. 239.

harris against saunders. Tuesday, June 21, 1825. A judgment obtained in,one of the Superior Courts in Ireland since the Union is not a record in England, and assumpsit is maintainable upon such a judgment. [S. C. 6 D. & R. 471; 3 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 239.] Assumpsit on a judgment obtained in Hilary term 1821, in the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland. The plaintiff having obtained a verdict, a rule nisi had been obtained for arresting the judgment, upon the ground that since the Union assumpsit would not lie on any such judgment. Marryat and Selwyn shewed cause. Assumpsit is maintainable on a foreign judgment, Crawford v. Whittal (Douglas, 4), Bowles v. Bradshaw (5), Plastow v. Van Uxem (ib.). The question is, whether since the Act of Union a judgment obtained in Ireland is a record of this country. By the Act of Union, 39 & 40 G. 3, c. 67, "All laws in force at the time of the Union, and all Courts of civil and eccle-[412]-siastical jurisdiction within the respective kingdoms, shall remain as now by law established within the respective kingdoms, subject only to such alterations and regulations, from time to time, as circumstances appear to the Parliament to require." Since the union with Scotland and Ireland assumpsit has been frequently brought on Scotch decrees and on Irish judgments. In Vaughan v. Plunkett (3 Taunt. 85), assumpsit was brought in this country on a judgment obtained in the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, and Chambre J. reserved the point, whether since the Union a judgment obtained in Ireland was a record, but the defendant acquiesced in the verdict found against him. (e) The form of the entry in the filager's book is as follows: Taken and acknowledged before me.\A. B. is delivered to bail to C. D. andE. F., J. bayley. J at the suit of G. H. . (a) By the names of Chetly v. Wood. 4B.&C.413. HARRIS V. SA UNDEKS 1113 In Collins v. Lord Mathew (5 East, 473), the question was not decided. The Court gave judgment on the ground that the plea ought to have concluded to the country. But, assuming that debt may be maintained, it does not follow that assumpsit will not lie. It is not necessary to bring debt in this country on a recognizance of bail taken in Ireland. The practice of bringing actions of debt upon such recognizances, probably arose from the necessity of suing in that mode upon recognizances in the nature of statute staple which are under seal. Debt lies on all contracts for the payment of money, but assumpsit lies on almost any such contract. The antecedent liability on the judgment is a good consideration for a promise. If it be a record, still it is to be proved before a jury by a copy, Collins v. Lard Mathew. A plaintiff, therefore, is at liberty to declare either in assumpsit or in debt. Evans contra. Debt is the proper form of action on a record. Comyn's Digest, tit. Debt, A, 2. It lies upon [413] a judgment given in a foreign Court. But in that case the judgment is not a specialty, and the grounds of it may be shewn and impeached by the defendant. The question is, whether since the Union a judgment given in Ireland is a record of this country 1 The only instance where assumpsit appears to have been brought on a judgment given in Ireland is Vaughan v. Plunkett (3 Taunt. 85), and it does not appear what ultimately became of the case. There may, perhaps, have been instances where assumpsit has been brought on decrees of the Courts in Scotland, but no objection to the form of action having been taken, they do not decide what...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Boyse v Rossborough
    • Ireland
    • Court of Chancery (Ireland)
    • 8 November 1854
    ...& F. 368). This is a principle which has been applied to Irish judgments: Collins v. Lord Mathew (5 Exch. 472; sed vide Lord Tenterdeu, 4 B. & C. 411); to decrees of the Court of Chancery in Ireland : Houlditch v. The Marquess of Donegqll (2 Cl. & F. 470); to decisions of the Ecclesiastical......
  • Pitt v Knight
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 1 January 1845
    ...of the evidence should be tried by a jury, and not by the Court. [It has, however, been held, that it is not a record in this country. 4 B. & C. 411, Harris v. Saunders. 6 D. & R. 471, S. C. 11 A. & E. 179, Ferguson v. Mahon. 3 P. & D. 143, S. C.] A party is not allowed to aver against a re......
  • Sims, Administratrix of Sims v Thomas
    • Ireland
    • Exchequer of Pleas (Ireland)
    • 13 January 1841
    ...954. Alivon v. FurnivalENR 1 C. M. & R. 277. Cotton v. Brown 3 A. & E. 312. Marsden v. Benson 5 Law Rec. 2 Ser. 22. Harris v. SaundersENR 4 B. & C. 411. Messin v. Lord MassareneENR 4 T. R. 493. Phillips v. HunterENR 2 H. Bl. 410. Walker v. Witter 1 Doung. 5 & 6. Galbraith v. NevilleENR 5 Ea......
  • Williams v Jones
    • United Kingdom
    • Exchequer
    • 22 January 1845
    ...[629] decree of a colonial court: Henley \. Sojier (8 B. & C. 1(5 ; 2 Man. & Ky. 153) ; or upon an Irish judgment: Harris v. Saunders (4 B. & C. 411); but it never has been expressly decided that any action, still less that an action of debt, will lie upon the judgment of an inferior court ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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