Jones v Williams and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 May 1841 |
| Date | 11 May 1841 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 1073
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 9 Dowl. P. C. 702; 10 L. J. Ex. 253; 5 Jur. 895. In Queen's Bench, 1839, 11 R. & E. 175; 4 P & D. 217. Followed, Widgery v. Tepper, 1877, 6 Ch. D. 369. Referred to, Taylor v. Roe, [1894] 1 Ch. 417.
[349] vacation sittings after eastbr tbkm. jones v. williams and others. Exch. of Pleas. May 11, 1841.-Trespass for breaking and entering the plaintiffs house and seizing his goods. Plea, that the defendant brought an action against the plaintiff, which was referred to arbitra tion by an agreement afterwards made a rule of Court; that the arbitrator awarded a certain sum to be due to the defendant, and ordered the plaintiff to pay it on a certain day, which he refusing to do, the defendant issued a writ of fi. fa., and levied on the plaintiff's goods. Replication, that by a rule of Court it was ordered that the said writ should be set aside for irregularity. Rejoinder (by way of estoppel) that, after the making of that rule of Court, the plaintiff ruled the sheriff to return the writ of fieri facias:-Held, on special demurrer to i the Rejoinder; tirst, that the replication was good, and that it was unnecessary J to afer that the rule of Court was acted on.-Secondly, that the plaintiff, by ! ruling the sheriff to return the writ, was not estopped from shewing thatlit was not a good writ, for although it might be bad as against the party suing;it out, it might still be good as respected the sheriff; and that the filing of record did not affirm the existence of a void writ; and therefore that the rejoinder was bad. -'thirdly, that the 1 & 2 Viet. c. 110, does not authorize a party to issue execution for money awarded by an arbitrator.-Fourthly, that the words in the 18th section, "monies or costs, charges or expenses," mean money decreed or ordered to be paid, together with the costs, &c., to be ascertained on taxation by the officer of the Court, and that no order to pay costs is requisite after taxation. [S. C. 9 Dowl. P. C. 702; 10 L. J. Ex. 253; 5 Jur. 895. In Queen's Bench, 1839, II R. & E. 175; 4 P. & D. 217. Followed, Wiilgery v. Tepper, 1877, 6 Ch. D. 369. Referred to, Taylor v. Roe, [1894] 1 Ch. 417.] Tresjpass for breaking and entering the plaintiff's dwelling-house, and seizing his goods apd chattels. Plea, that before the said time when &c., the plaintiff commenced an acticin of debt against the defendant John Williams, during the pendency of which action it was, by a certain agreement in writing made between the plaintiff atjd defendant, after reciting &c., mutually agreed to refer the said action, and all matters in dispute in the said cause, to the award, arbitrament, and final determination of R. G. T. [The plea then set out the agreement, the material provisions of which were as follows:] And it was further agreed, that the costs before then incurred by the parties to the said agreement in the said cause, or in anywise respecting the said 1'074 JONES V. WILLIAMS 8M. &W. 350. disputes and differences, and such as had been incurred up to and inclusive of the day of that agreement, including the costs arid charges of witnesses who had been subpoenaed by either party to attend the trial of the said cause, and the costs of their travelling home, and the costs of preparing the said agreement and the said award, and of carrying the same respectively into effect, and the costs and charges of the aaid arbitrator, and the costs and charges attendant on or incurred in the said reference by the said parties, their advocates and wit-[350]-nesses, should abide the event of the said reference and of the said award, to be taxed as between attorney and client, and to be paid by such party against whom a balance of the accounts should appear to be due by the award, at such time and in such manner as the said R. ct. T. by his award should direct. And it was agreed that the arbitrator should be at liberty to examine, ascertain, and settle the accounts as claimed in the particulars of the plaintiff's demand, and the defendant J. W.'s set-off in the said action ; and the arbitrator was to be at liberty to direct the payment of any balance which he might find to be clue from those particulars, either from the plaintiff to defendant J. W., or from defendant T. W. to the plaintiff, at such time and in such manner as the said arbitrator should think fit: as by the said agreement, reference being thereunto had, will fully appear. The plea then stated, that the arbitrator awarded that there was a balance due upon the accounts from the plaintiff to defendant J. W., amounting to 091. 8s. lid., which sum, together with the costs, charges, and expenses, the arbitrator directed to be paid by the plaintiff' to the defendant J. W. on the 1st September then next : it then alleged that the agreement was made a rule of Court: that after the making of the award, and before the said times when &c., the costs, charges, and expenses, so rnade by the said agreement to abide the event of the said award, were duly taxed as between attorney and client, at a large sum of money, to wit, the sum of '2'M, whereof the plaintiff afterwards had notice, and was then requested by the defendant J. W. to pay him the said sum of (i9l. 8s. lid., together with the costs, charges, and expenses so taxed as aforesaid, amounting in the whole to the sum of 3081. 8s. I Id., according to the tenor and effect of the said rule of Court, and of the said award and submission, but the plaintiff wholly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stedman v Hart
...lunacy to pay money the effect of judgments; and an order to tax costs is an order to pay them at law and in equity : Jones v. Williams (8 M. & W. 349); and creates an equitable lien upon the lunatic's real estate: Barnesley v. Powell (Amb. 102), Wilson v. Metcalfe (1 Buss. 536); and, if th......
-
Smith and Another v Troup
...under this statute ? ] It has repeatedly been held so : Neale v. Postlethwaite (1 Q. B. 243, 4 P. & D. 643); Jones v. Williams (8 M. & W. 349, 9 Dowl. P. C. 702); Doe v. Army (8 M. & W. 565, 1 Dowl. K S. 23). In Wilson v. Foster (6 M. & W. 149, 6 Scott, N. E. 936), where a defendant who was......
-
Umpleby v Waveney Valley Railway Company
...supported. The judgment was reversed, though on another point. [They also cited Taylor v. Southgate (4 My. & Cr. 203), Jones v. Williams (8 M. & W. 349), Harold v. Smith (5 Hurls. & Norm. 381).] vice-chancelloe Sir W. page wood. The general rule is clearly established that you cannot revive......
-
Doe D. Harrison v Hampson
...living, the consent rule is not one that could have been enforced by application to the court under this statute : Jones v. Williams (8 M. & W. 349); Neale v. Postkthwaite (1 Q. B. 243); Hodgson v. Patterson (4 M. & G. 333, 5 Scott, N. E. 76); Doe v. Bollard (9 Law Times, 124). The proper c......