Hathaway v Barrow and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 December 1807 |
| Date | 17 December 1807 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 909
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS.
[151] Thursday, Dec 17, 1807 hathaway v. barrow and others (If B. and C. are convicted of a conspiracy, on the prosecution of A , the conviction is not admissible evidence in an action afterwards brought against them by A for the same conspiracy In an action for malfeasance, whereby the piaintift (a) It would appear that the same object may be gained, by the executor or administrator confessing a judgment to a trustee, to a sufficient amount to cover the assets, and afterwards pleading this judgment to an action by a litigious creditor In Me-ux, q. t., v Howell, 4 East, 10, in answer to an observation from the bar, that it id a common replication to a plea by executors of a judgment recovered which is unsatisfied, that judgment was acknowledged by the executors for a larger sum than was due to the party,-Lawrence, J. said-"Why may not such a plea state, that the testator was indebted to A. B. and C in so much respectively, and that the judgment was acknowledged to A in trust to secure ull their debts ' 51 * Vide 1 Hawk P. C. 247, sect. 17 , Ellis v. Warnes, Moor 752. 910 WILLIAMS V. NUNN 1 CAMP. 163. incurred costs in judicial proceedings-*, if there la an order of another Court for the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings to the plaintiff, he can neither recover, as special damage, the sum at which they are taxed, uor the extra costs as between himself and his attorney ) [Referred to, In te Cnppen's Estate, [1911J P. 108 | This was au action on the case for a conspiracy to prevent the plaintiff from obtaining his certificate under a commission of bankrupt The defendants had been convicted of the same conspiracy upon an indictment preferred against them by the plaintiff at the Quaiter Sessions for the county of Middlesex After a great variety of other evidence, the counsel for the plaintiff wished to put in the record of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berry v British Transport Commission
...same question cannot be gone into twice. The rule appears to have been first laid down by Sir James Mansfield in ( Hathaway v. Barrow 1807) 1 Campbell, page 151, where he put it on the ground that "it would be incongruous to allow a person one sum as costs in one Court, and a different sum ......
-
Hollington v Hewthorn (F.) & Company
... ... [They referred to Peake on Evidence, Preface to 2nd ed., 1804; Smith v. Rummens F5 ; Hathaway v. Barrow F6 ; Wilkinson v. Gordon F7 ; Blakemore v. Glamorganshire Canal Co. F8 ; Justice v ... ...
-
Union Discount Company Ltd v Zoller and Others
...to be the same question cannot be gone into twice. The rule appears to have been first laid down by Mansfield C.J. in Hathaway v Barrow (1807) 1 Camp. 151 where he put it on the ground that “it would be incongruous to allow a person one sum as costs in one court, and a different sum for the......
-
Carroll v Kynaston
...be the same question cannot be gone into twice. The rule appears to have been first laid down by Mansfield C.J. in Hathaway v. Barrow (1807) 1 Camp. 151 where he put it on the ground that “it would be incongruous to allow a person one sum as costs in one court, and a different sum for the s......