Loton against Devereux
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 1832 |
| Date | 31 January 1832 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 129
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 1 L. J. K. B. 103.
loton against devereux. Tuesday January 31st, 1832. A defendant on whose application a judgment has been set aside for irregularity, in practice, without costs, cannot recover such costs as damages in an action of trespass against the plaintiff's attorney, for taking his goods under colour of the judgment. [S. C. 1 L. J. K. B. 103.] In a case of Loton v. Loton the Court of King's Bench set aside a judgment and execution for irregularity, but without costs; the irregularity being that no rule [344] for judgment had been given. Afterwards, Loton, the former defendant, brought an action of trespass against Devereux (the attorney of the former plaintiff) for taking his goods, and alleged as special damage, that the defendant had taken them under colour of a supposed judgment, whereby the plaintiff was put to great expenses and costs in procuring the judgment to be set aside. The defendant suffered judgment by default. The sheriff's jury found a verdict of 601., being 401. for the seizure and detaining of the goods, and 201. for the costs of procuring the judgment to be set aside. A rule nisi having been obtained to reduce the damages to 401., E. V. Richards, on a former day in this term, shewed cause. Although the Court might refuse to give costs to the plaintiff in the original action, they have no power to deprive the defendant in that action of the costs which he has incurred in consequence of the bad judgment. Cash v. Wells (1 B. & Ad. 375), shews that the setting aside proceedings, in cases like the present, is not a matter in the discretion of this Court, and that it will not impose terms. Godson contra. The matter of the rule having been by consent of the parties before the Court, it bad the power to decide the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berry v British Transport Commission
...attempted by the plaintiff in Cockburn v. Edwards (1881) 18 Chancery Division, page 449. Or as Chief Justice Tenterden said in Loton v. Devereux (1832) 3 Barnewall and Adolphus, page 343, at page 345: "Actions would frequently be brought for costs after the Court had refused to allow them".......
-
The North West Regional Health Authority v Cheryl Miller
...the Court of Appeal with leave of the judge or the Court of Appeal. 103 The point however is not without authority. 104 In Loton v Devereux 110 ER 129 the court in a previous action set aside a judgment obtained in an action for irregularity but without costs. Afterwards, Loton, the defenda......
- Anderson v Bowles
-
T. Power v Fleming and O'Donnell
...Ad., 616. Hathaway v. BarrowENR 1 Camp. 151. Sandback v. Thomas Hark. N. P. 306. Grace v. MorganENR 2 B. N. C. 534. Loton v. DevereuxENR 3 B. & Ad. 343. Rowles v. Senior and others 8 Q. B. 677. Thynne v. Russell 1 Jebb & Symes, 155. Attorney's Liability for Wrongful Seizure under fi fa. Dir......