Mayer against Burgess
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 January 1855 |
| Date | 26 January 1855 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 119 E.R. 241
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 24 L. J. Q. B. 67; 1 Jur. N. S. 473.
mayer against burgbss. Friday, January 26th, 1855. Defendant, being high bailiff of a county court, received a sum under 201., in respect, as the plaintiff insisted, of debt and costs recovered by plaintiff in a suit in the county court, and for which sum a warrant had issued and had been delivered to the present defendant. Plaintiff sued the present defendant in the county court on account of the receipt of this sum, claiming 201. Is. by the particulars. - Held : that the suit was substantially brought for the sum received by defendant, and was therefore for a sum less than 201. ; and therefore jurisdiction waa given to the county 242 MAYER V. BURGESS 4 EL. & BL. 656. court by stafc. 9 & 10 Viet. e. 95, s. 58, and nob by stat. 13 & 14 Viet. c. 61; and no appeal lay under sect. 14 of the latter Act. [S. C. 24 L. J. Q. B. 67; 1 Jur. N. S. 473.] Thig was a case stated on appeal from the County Court of Cheshire holden at Congleton. The statements of the case, so far as material to the present decision, were as follows. [656] The particulars of the plaintiffs demand were: "This action is brought to recover 201. Is., as damages from the defendant, on the following grounds. " 1st. For omitting and neglecting to levy on the goods of Ambrose Dean, in his dwelling bouse and premises, under an execution issued out of this court at the suit of the plaintiff against him in the month of April last. " 2d. For omitting to pay into Court, as required by law, the debt and costs in the said action of Mayer v. Dean, which you, the defendant, alleged you had levied and received under the said execution : and the plaintiff will seek to recover the amount so alleged to have been received by you as money had and received by you to his use. "3d. For making a false return to the warrant of execution in the said case of Mayer v. Dean; whereby you alleged that you had not executed or levied such execution, and also alleged that the said Ambrose Dean had no goods, chattels or effects whereon to levy." At the trial, on 17th October last, before the judge of the said court, the following facts were proved or admitted. On 25th April last, the present plaintiff recovered in the same court against one Dean, a trader within the meaning of the statutes relating to bankrupts, judgment for the sum of 91. 9s. and costs. On the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tan Chiang Brother's Marble (S) Pte Ltd v Permasteelisa Pacific Holdings Ltd
...Dreesman v Harris (1854) 9 Exch 485; 156 ER 207 (folld) Mason v Burningham [1949] 2 KB 545 (folld) Mayer v Burgess (1855) 4 El & Bl 655; 119 ER 241 (folld) Nomura Regionalisation Venture Fund Ltd v Ethical Investments Ltd [2000] 2 SLR (R) 926; [2000] 4 SLR 46 (refd) Pearson Judith Rosemary ......
-
Nortje en 'n Ander v Pool, NO
...om die verarmde verligting te ontsê nie. Sien Rubin v Botha, supra te bl. 576; Fletcher & Fletcher v Bulawayo Waterworks Co. Ltd., supra te bl. 655; Spencer v Gostelow, 1920 AD 617 te bl. 627; Hauman v Nortje, 1914 AD 293 te bl. 301; Ras v Vermeulen, 1927 OPD 5 te bl. 7; Van Rensburg v Stra......
-
Ong Wah Chuan v Seow Hwa Chuan
...Pte Ltd [2003] 2 SLR (R) 137; [2003] 2 SLR 137 (refd) Mason v Burningham [1949] 2 KB 545 (refd) Mayer v Burgess (1855) 4 El & Bl 655; 119 ER 241 (refd) Sethuraman Arumugam v Star Furniture Industries Pte Ltd [1999] SGHC 144 (refd) Tan Chiang Brother's Marble (S) Pte Ltd v Permasteelisa Paci......
-
Conradie v Landro en Van der Hoff (Edms) Bpk
...1959 (4) SA 263; Misid Investments (Pty.) Ltd v Leslie, 1960 (4) 473 te bl. 474 - 5; Kassim Bros. (Pty.) Ltd v Kassim, 1964 (1) SA 651 te bl. 655. Dit word voorts betoog dat die besturende direkteur wesentlik in dieselfde posisie is as 'n eiser wat self die verklaring maak. Sien Joel's Barg......