King and Another v Hoare
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 November 1844 |
| Date | 25 November 1844 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 153 E.R. 206
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 2 D. & L. 382; 14 L. J. Ex. 29; 8 Jur. 1127. Distinguished, Ex parte Waterfall; In re Morrison, 4 De G. & Sm. 199. Followed, Brinsmead v. Harrison, 1872, L. R. 7 C. P. 553; Blyth v. Fladgate, [1891] 1 Ch. 337. Approved, Buckland v. Johnson, 1854, 15 C. B. 145; Kendall v. Hamilton, 1879, 4 A. C. 504. Discussed, Irish Land Commission v. Junkin, 1888, 24 L. R. Ir. 40. Explained, In re King and Beesley; Ex parte Horner, [1895] 1 Q. B. 189. Applied, M'Leod v. Power, [1898] 2 Ch. 295. Not applied, Beck v. Pierce, 1889, 23 Q. B. D. 316 Weall v. James, 1893, 68 L. T. 515; 4 R. 356. Referred to, Baker v. Sayers, 1868, 17 L. T. 579; Ex parte Jackson; Re Wheal Consols Mines Company, 1870, 21 L. T. 68; Bermondsey Vestry v. Ramsey, 1871, L. R. 6 C. P. 251; Ex parte Chandler; Re Davison, 1884, 13 Q. B. D. 54; Munster v. Cox, 1885, 10 A. C. 688; Re Hodgson; Beckett v. Ramsdale, 1885, 31 Ch. D. 184; Odell v. Cormack, 1887, 19 Q. B. D. 228; Cambefort v. Chapman, 1887, 19 Q. B. D. 232; Pilley v. Robinson, 1887, 19 Q. B. D. 228; Cambefort v. Chapman, 1887, 19 Q. B. D. 232; Pilley v. Robinson, 1887, 20 Q. B. D. 158; Hammond v. Schofield, [1891] 1 Q. B. 453; Westmoreland Slate Company v. Fielden, [1891] 3 Ch. 15; British South Africa Company v. Companhie de Moçambique, [1893] A. C. 602; Wegg-Prosser v. Evans, [1894] 2 Q. B. 101.
k|ng and another v. hoare. Nov. 25, 1844.-fA "judgment (without satisfaction) / 4fA recovered against one of two joint debtors is a bar to an action against the r:-Secus, where the debt is joint and several.-And it is pleadable in bar, not in abatement.-Such a plea need not contain a verification by the record, or prayer of judgment. I 2 D. & L. 382 ; 14 L. J. Ex. 29; 8 Jur. 1127. Distinguished, Ex parte Waterfall; In re Morrison, 4 De G. & Sm. 199. Followed, Unnsmeculv. Harrison, 1872, L. R. 7 C. P. 553; ISiyth v. Fladgate, [1891] 1 Ch. 337. Approved, Buckland v. /ohnson, 1854, 15 C. B. 145; Kendall v. Hamilton, 1879, 4 A. C. 504. Discussed, Irish Land Commission v. Junkin, 1888, 24 L. R. Ir. 40. Explained, In re Kinij and Beenley; Ex parte Homer, [1895] 1 Q. B. 189. Applied, M'Leod v. ['owe,; [1898] 2 Ch. 295. Not applied, Beck v. Pierce, 1889, 23 Q. B. D. 316; Weall v. J'ames, 1893, 68 L. T. 515; 4 R. 356. .Referred to, Baker v. layers, 1868, 17 L. T. 579; Eos parte Jaekson; Re Wheal Consols Mines Company, 1870, 21 L. T. 68; Bermond&ey Vestry v. Ramsey, 1871, L. R. 6 C. P. 251; Ex parte Chandler; Re Damson, 1884, 13 Q. B. D. 54; Munster v. Cox, 1885, 10 A. C. 688; Re Hodgson ; Beckett v. Ramsdale, 1885, 31 Ch. D. 184; Odell v. Cm-mack, 1887, 19 Q. B. D. 228; Oambefort v. Chapman, 1887, 19 Q. B. D. 232; Pilley v. Robinson, 1887, 20 Q. B. D, 158; Hammond v. Schqfield, [1891] 1 Q. B. 453 ; Westmoreland Slate Company v. Maiden, [1891] 3 Ch. 15 ; British South, Africa Company v. Companhie de Mozambique, [1893] A. C. 602 ; Jfegg- frosser v. Evans, [1894] 2 Q. B. 101.] Debt for goods sold and delivered. Plea, that the said goods were sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendant jointly with one N. T. Smith, and not to the; defendant alone, and were to be paid for to the plaintiffs by the defendant joirttly with the said N. T. Smith, and not by the defendant alone, and that the, said monies in the declaration mentioned were, at the time of the accruing thereof, to wit, &c., due from the defendant and the said N. T. Smith jointly, and not froip the defendant alone; that the said monies continuing and being due and payable by this defendant jointly with the said N. T. Smith, the plaintiffs hereto- to wit, &i., in the court of our lady the Queen at Westminster, impleaded the N. T. Smith in an action of debt, for the detaining and riot paying of the said fort said monies and debt, and for and in respect of the same identical causes of action in the declaration men-[495]-tioned ò and such proceedings were thereupon had in the said action, that afterwards, to wit, ou &c., the plaintiffs, by the consideration and judgment of the said Court, recovered in the said action against the said N. T. Smith the said several monies and sum of £16,000 above demanded, as also 901. 6s. as damages and costs, whereof the said N. T. Smith was convicted, as by the record and proceedings thereof, still remaining in the said court of our lady the Queen at Westminster, more fully and at large appears; which said judgment still remains in full force and effect, and not the least reversed or made void. Verification. Special demurrer, assigning for causes, that the defendant has pleaded in bar of the Action matter which ought to have been pleaded, if at all, in abatement; that the plea, amounts to a plea of never indebted; that the plea does not aver that the monies were not due from the defendant and N. T. Smith severally and! jointly ; that the recovery of a judgment against one of two debtors in a sum certain does not of itself, or without satisfaction, operate in law to bar the action of the creditor against the other debtor; and that the plea ought to have concluded with a statement that the defendant was ready to verify it by the record. Joinder in demurrer. 13-M. fcW. 496. KING r. HOARE 207 The case was argued on the 21st of November, by J. Henderson, in support of the demurrer. The position which is to be maintained on the part of the defendant is, that a judgment recovered against one of several joint debtors, per ae, without satisfaction, may be pleaded in bar to an action against another of the joint debtors. There is no authority for such a position, nor is it consistent either with natural justice or with the policy of the law. The case of it verdict and judgment against one of several tort feasors is altogether distinguishable. The distinction between that case and the case of. a joint debt is laid down in [496]...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Republic of India and Another v India Steamship Company Ltd (Indian Endurance and Indian Grace)
...cause of action, having become merged in the judgment, ceases to exist, as is expressed in the Latin maxim transit in rem judicatam: see King v. Hoare (1844) 13 M. & W. 494, 504, per Parke B., cited by Lord Penzance and Lord Blackburn in Kendall v. Hamilton (1879) 4 App. Cas. 504, 526 and 1......
-
Attorney General v Lord and Allen
... ... 226 Isaacs & Sons v Salbstein (1916-17) All ER Rep 386 King v HoareENR (1844) 153 ER 206 Lechmere v FlecherENR (1883) 149 ER 549 ... a document reading ‘Signed, Sealed and Delivered’ but which in fact was not sealed, and another party acted on it to his detriment, then the executing party is estopped from denying that it is ... ...
-
Bryanston Finance Ltd v de Vries
...the other for the same cause. That decision was endorsed as correct in the 19th century in two cases of the highest authority, namely, King v. Hoare(1844) 13 M. & W. 404; and Brinsmead v. Harrison (1872) L. R. 7 C. P. 547. The rule was justified in those days on the ground that it avoided m......
-
Roddam v Morley
...unsatisfied, and afterwards he sues the obligor who has made an acknowledgment-according to the rule of law established by King v. Hoare (13 M. & W. 494), the former judgment might be pleaded in bar of the action. Is it intended, then, by the statute that the ordinary rule should be relaxed......