Hews v Pyke
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 149 E.R. 153
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 2 Tyr. 313; 1 Dowl. P. C. 322; 1 L. J. Ex. 120.
[359] HEWS v. PVKE. Exch. of Pleas. 1832.-Where money was deposited in Court in lieu of putting in and perfecting bail above, pursuant to statute 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 71, and the plaintiff obtained a verdict:-Held, that he was not at liberty to issue execution for the whole sum recovered, but was bound to take the sum deposited out of Court, and to limit his execution to the surplus only. [S. C. 2 Tyr. 313; 1 Dowl. P. C. 322; 1 L. J. Ex. 120.] In this case the defendant had deposited in the hands of the Sheriff the amount for which the arrest was made, and 101. for costs, in lieu of bail to the Sheriff; and that sum, together with a further sum of 101., as au additional security for the costs of the action, was afterwards paid into Court, pursuant to 7 & 8 Greo 4, c. 71. The plaintiff recovered a verdict, taxed his costs, and issued execution for the whole amount of the damages and costs, without regard to the money paid into Court. The case having been afterwards referred to the Master to review his taxation, and a considerable deduction having been made, the defendant applied to the Court for the costs of the motion to review, and to set aside the levy under the execution to the amount of the money paid into Court. The whole of the matter in dispute was referred to the Master, who reported, on the principle, that the plaintiff had no right to issue execution for the whole amount of damages and costs, but was bound to take the sum deposited out of Court, and levy for the remainder only. Crowthei' now applied that the Master might be directed to review his report; aind submitted that the statute was not compulsory on the plaintiff to take the money Deposited out of Court, but ouly gave him a right to do so if he thought proper, leaving him still at liberty to issue execution for the whole amount of damages and costs. Follett shewed cause in the first instance. The Master's report is correct, and he has construed the statute properly. The view taktii by the Master was, that, as the money was deposited in Court in lieu of bail, there to remain "to abide the event of the suit," the successful party ouly was entitled to take the money out. It would, there-[360]-fore, be an...
To continue reading
Request your trial