Outhwalle v Hudson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 February 1852 |
| Date | 21 February 1852 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 995
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 21 L J Ex 151, 16 Jur 430
outhwaiie, Appellant, hudson, Respondent Feb 21,1852-A plaintiff in a county court has a right to be nonsuited at any time befoie the jury have delivered their yerdict, or, if the cause be tried by a judge alone, at any time before the judge has dehveied his judgment -As a general mle, the successful party in an appeal is entitled to costs -Where the plaintiff, before verdict, applied to be nonsuited, which the judge refused, but stated that he would give the plaintiff leave to move to set aside the veidict and to enter a nonsuit, and the plaintiff, without moving in pursuance of such leave, appealed against the decision, the Court allowed the plaintiff the costs of the appeal [S C 21 L J Ei 151 , 16 Jui 430] This was an appeal from the decision of the Judge of the County Court of York-shne It was an action for the breach of a warranty of a hotse, and at the trial, 696 CARR V JACKSON 7 BX 381 which was held at Leeds, after the judge had directed the juiy, and whilst they were deliberating upon then veidict, the plaintiff stated that he elected to be nonsuited To this the defendant objected , and the judge said that he thought that, as the case Jiad been left to the jury, the application was too late, and th.it he would therefore take the verdict, but reserve leave to the plaintiff to move to set the verdict aside, and to enter a nonsuit The jury found a verdict foi the defendant The plaintiff ne^er Jrioved to aet aside the verdict pursuant to the leave reserved, but appealed to this Court The question submitted was, whether the county court j'udge was bound, in point | f law, to nonsuit the plaintiff, arid whether the judge had any authority, under the 78th and 79th sections of the 9 & 10 Viet c 95, or otherwise, to refuse to enter a nonsuit R Hall appeared for the appellant, but was stopped by the Court J Addiaon, contra This Court has no jurisdiction in the matter The 13 & 14 Yict c 61, b 14, gives an appeal only in cases where a paity is dissatisfied with the decision of the county court judge upon some question of law The [381] decision as U) entering a nonsuit is a meie mattei of practice There is a great distinction between the two Cherry v Pmiell (I Dowl & Ky 50) The county court judge has the power of ordering the practice of his court, and he is not bound to adopt that of the superior...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Jones v Dunkel
-
Clack v Arthur's Engineering Ltd
...of the Judge to direct the Jury to find for the defendant", Reliance was also placed on Robinson v. Lawrence, 7 Excheque, page 124, Outhwaite v. Hudson, 7 Exehequer, page 380, and Kershaw, v. Chantlor. 26 Law Tims Reports, page 474, In Robinson v. Iawrence, where the appeal was by the defen......
-
Moorview Developments Ltd and Others v First Active Plc and Others
...PROCEEDINGS MOORVIEW DEVELOPMENTS LTD & ORS v FIRST ACTIVE PLC & ORS UNREP CLARKE 6.3.2009 2009 IEHC 214 OUTHWAITE v HUDSON 1852 7 EXCH 380 155 ER 995 POYSER v MINORS 1880-81 7 QBD 329 R v MACHEN & BRICKDALE 1849 14 QB 74 117 ER 29 CLACK v ARTHURS ENGINEERING LTD 1959 2 QB 211 1959 2 WLR 91......
-
The Administration of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea v Toilu Mai and Another (Re Emananus Island) [1969–70] PNGLR 319
...to find out what are the rights of a claimant. He referred to Robinson v Lawrence (1851) 7 Exch 123; 155 ER 883, Outhwaite v Hudson (1852) 7 Exch 380; 155 ER 995 and Clack v Arthur's Engineering Ltd [1959] 2 QB 211. These cases establish clearly the right of a plaintiff in a common–law acti......