Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

Houlden v Smith

State Trials Cited authorities 20 Cited in 1 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date26 February 1850
Date26 February 1850
CourtState Trial Proceedings
HOULDEN against SMITH. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF QUEEN”S BENCH IN AN ACTION OF TRESPASS AGAINST THE JUDGE OF THE COUNTY COURT OF SPILSBY, BEFORE PATTESON, COLERIDGE, AND WIGHTMAN, JJ., JANUARY 18, 25, AND FEBRUARY 26, 1850. (Reported in 14 Q.B. 841, AND 19 L.J. Q.B. 170.) Action of trespass against the judge of the Spilsby County Court, who had committed the plaintiff for failing to appear to a summons issued under 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95. s. 98, bond fide believing that he had authority to do so, but without jurisdiction, as the plaintiff did not reside or carry on business in the Spil.by district, a fact which had appeared in the previous proceedings in the suit. Held by the Court of Queen”s Bench- Trespass Judge of Court of Record with limited jurisdiction.(a) An action will lie aaainst the judge of a Court of Record with limited jurisdiction for exceeding his jurisdiction under a mistake of the law as applicable to facts which were before, and could not be unknown to, him.(a) (a) See Calder v. Halket, 4 St. Tr. N.S. 496 n, where the later cases are referred to ; Anderson v. Gorrie, 1895, 1 Q. B. 668. Trespass for false imprisonment. Pleas : I. Not guilty. Issue thereon. 2. That defendant acted under 9 & 10 Vict. c. and that a month”s notice of action was not given. Replication : that there ”was notice. Issue thereon. On the trial, before Parke. B., at the Cambridge Summer Assizes, 1848, a verdict was found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of this Court upon a case, of which the substance was as follows : The defendant was judge of the County Court of Lincolnshire holden at Spilsby. The plaintiff dwelt and carried on business at Cambridge, out of the district assigned to the Spilsby Court. The defendant, on tl.e 8th July 1847, gave leave to two persons of the names of Young and Madden to summon plaintiff to the Spilaby Court on a cause of action which had accrued in the district of that court. Plaintiff was summoned at Cambridge ; ho did not appear, and, on proof of the summons, judgment was given against him by default. This judgment being unsatisfied, Young and Madden, the plaintiff”s in the plaint, obtained from the county court a judgment summons, under the County Courts Act, 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95. 8. 98, calling on the plaintiff, as defendant in the plaint, to appear in the county court, holden at Spilaby, in order to be examined by the judge of that court, and giving him notice that, in case of his not appearing, he might be committed to the common gaol at Spilsby. This summons was served on the plaintiff at Cambridge, where he re sided, out of the district of the Spilsby Court. The plaintiff having disregarded this summons, and not appearing at the Spilsby Court, and the service of the last-mentioned summons having been duly proved, the defendant, whilst acting as and in the capacity of judge of the Spilsby County Court, and bond fide believing he had power and authority as such judge to make such an order. made, in the minute book of the Spilsby Court, a memorandum in the action in that court, ordering that the defendant in the plaint. the now plaintiff, should for his contempt be committed to Cambridge gaol. A warrant issued accordingly; and the plaintiff was taken under it and imprisoned in Cambridge gaol until discharged on habeas corpus. Notice of action given in due time was proved. COURT Or QUEEN”S BENCH. Before Pei-mm., COLERIDGE, and WIGHTJJ. January 18 and 26, 1850. Watson (a) (for the plaintiff): The judge had no jurisdiction to commit for contempt. 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95. s. 98 only authorises a jndgment summons to be obtained from the county court "within the limits of which the other party shall then dwell or carry on business." The defendant, the judge of the Spilsby court, had no jurisdiction to issue the (a) Afterwards a Baron of the Exchequer. 1041] Houlden against Smith, 1850. [1042 summons, and consequently no jurisdiction to commit for the alleged contempt. When a judge has no jurisdiction he is responsible, though he erroneously thinks he has jurisdiction, Garrett v. Morley.(a) The defendant in the present case is a judge of a court of record, with an authority limited by statute. His order not being witnin the scope of his special jurisdiction given him by the statute, is void ; and he is liable in trespass, Watson v. Bodell,(b) Miller v. Seare.(c) There is a class of cases, of which Thomas v. Hudson(d) is one, which decide that an officer, obeying the order of a court, is protected, though the order itself was void ; but, as shown in Andrews v. Marri8,(e) the officer is protected because he is bound to obey the commands of his superior, if formally given, without inquiring whether the superior was justified or not. That principle is not applicable to the judge himself...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases

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