Phillips v Ward and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 November 1863 |
| Date | 11 November 1863 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 159 E.R. 297
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C 33 L J. Ex. 7, 9 Jur. (N S.) 1182, 12 W R. 106, 9 L. T 345.
phillips v. ward and others Nov. 11, 1863-A judgment recovered by one of several joint debtors cannot be pleaded as a defence to a subsequent action against the other joint debtors in respect of the same cause, unless the plea shews that the judgment was lecovered on a ground which operated as a discharge of all. [S. C 33 L J. Ex. 7 , 9 Jur. (N S.) 1182 , 12 W R. 106 , 9 L. T 345 ] Declaration. For money payable by the defendants to the plaintiff, for woik, &c , done by the plaintiff as attorney and solicitor of and otherwise for the defendants, upon their retainer, and for fees due in respect thereof, and for materials, &c, provided, and for money lent, money paid, and on accounts stated. Plea. That the plaintiff ought not to be admitted to say that any money is payable by the defendants to the plaintiff for the causes of action m the declaration mentioned, because the}7 say that the said retainer was a joint retainer by the defendants in this action and one John Bazalgette, and that the said fees became due, and the said materials and necessary things were piovided by the plaintiff for the defendants, under and in respect of the said joint retainer, and not otherwise; and that the said money was lent by the plaintiff to, and paid by the plaintiff for, the defendants jointly with, the said John Bazalgette, and not otherwise , and the said accounts were stated of and conceinmg the aforesaid transactions between the plaintiff' and the defendants jointly with the said .John Bazalgette, arid not other-[718]-wise, and that before this suit the plaintiff brought an action against the said John Bazalgette in the Court of Common Pleas for the same causes of action as in the declaration mentioned ; and such proceedings ^ere thereupon had in that action that afterwards and before this suit it was considered by the judgment of the said Court in the said action that the plaintiff should take nothing by his writ for or in respect of the said causes of action, and the said judgment still remains in force, and this the defendants are ready to verify. Wherefore they piay judgment if the plaintiff ought to be admitted to say that any money is payable by the defendants to the plaintiff for the causes of action in the declaration mentioned Demurrer, and joinder therein. Hayes, Serjt, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joyce v Bowman Law Ltd
... ... Mr Joyce was first represented in the purchase transaction by George Ide Phillips , Solicitors (“GIP”). GIP was replaced by Bowman in mid-August 2005. On 16 th August 2005, ... ...
-
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company Europe Ltd and Others v Dow Deutscheland Inc. and Others
...Reliance was placed on House of Spring Gardens v Waite [1991] 1 QB 241 at pp.252–254, Philips v Ward (1863) 2 Hurstone and Colman 717, 159 ER 297 and Spencer, Bower, Turner and Handley, Res Judicata 3 rd.ed.1996 at paragraph 220. 79 The Claimants said that the Dow and Bayer Defendants were ......
- Ramsay v Pigram
-
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company v Shell Chemicals UK Ltd [QBD (Comm)]
...[2009] EWHC 1326 (Ch). Owens Bank v Bracco (No. 2)ECAS (Case C-129/02) [1994] ECR I-117. Philips v Ward (1863) 2 Hurstone and Colman 717; 159 ER 297. Provimi Ltd v Roche Products LtdUNK [2003] EWHC 961 (Comm). Reunion Europeenne SA v Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BVECAS (Case C-51/97) [1......