R v Gameson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1840 |
| Date | 01 January 1840 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 553
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 8 Dowl. P. C. 795; 9 L. J. Ex. 322.
M.*W. M2. REGtNA. V. GAMESON 553 [602] reports of casks argued and determined en tkr courts of exchequer and exchequer chamber, trinity term, 3 VrcToat-iE. rkgula g-eneralis. It is resolved by the .'udges, that when a Judge's Order is made a Rule of Court, it dhall he a part of the tiule of Court, that the coats of making the Order a rule of Court shall be paid by the party against whom the Order is made : Provided an affidavit be made and tiled, that the Order has been served on the party or his attorney, and disobeyed (see the case next reported). 27th May, 1840. [60S] RitiiiNA 11. gameson Exch. of Pleas. 1840.-Upon a Judge's order, clisohargiag a summons with costs, the costs were taxed and demanded, and not being pawl or tendered, the order was made a rule of Court. The costs of making it a rule of Court were also taxed, and both sums were separately demanded. The party tendered the former amount, but refused payment of the latter : -Held, that he was not liable to an attachment, the costs of making the order a rule of Court not being costs within the meaning of the order and rule. [S. C. 8 Dowl. P. C. 795; 9 L. J. Ex. 3-2-2.] Thia was a rule calling upon the plaintiff to shew cause why an attachment, issued against the defendant for non-payment of two several sums of 11. 8s. 7d. and 21. 18s. 2d., pursuant to the Master's allocator, should not be set aside. In Hilary Term, Crowder shewed cause against the rule, and Hoggins was heard in support of it. The question in the case was, whether the costs of making a Judge's order, for discharging a summons with costs, a rule of Court, were costs within the meaning of the order ;md rule, so as to bring the defendant into contempt for nonpayment of them. The Court took time to consult the Judges of the other Court, and in this term judgment was delivered by parke, B. On the 5th of February, 1839, I made an order, dismissing with costs a summons to amend the declaration, by inserting the defendant's true name at the plaintiff's costs. The costs of this order were taxed at 11. 7s., and an allocatur given fot that amount. Whether this order was served appears doubtful on the affidavits, but the defendant's agent attended the taxation of costs thereon. On the 14th of February, my Brother Alderson ordered all proceedings in the action to be stayed, oij payment 0f debt without costs, on the ground...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen against the Inhabitants of Exminster
...the parish of Exminster, Devon, the " Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the City of Exeter " (so styled in the (a) See 1 Mann. & G. 278: 6 M. & W. 603. 710 12 AD. * B. 8. THE QUEEN V. BXMINSTER 71 I rate) were assessed as the "occupiers" of "land covered with water, used as a canal, with to......
-
Riggs Miller v Wheatley
...Railway Sleepers Supply Co. 29 Ch. Ch. Div. 204. Townsend v. AshENR 3 Atk. 336. Davies v. LowndesENRENR 5 Bing. N. C. 161, at p. 173; 6 M. & W. 603. Doe d. Cadwalader and Other v. PriceENR 16 M. & W. 603. Cahill v. CahillELR 8 App. Cas. 420. Paul Pry d. Farrell v. MaguireUNK 2 J. & S. 539; ......
-
William Clement v John Weaver
...of the court founded upon a resolution of the court of Exchequer of the 27th of May 1840, ante, vol. i. 278. And see Begina v. Game-son, 6 M. & W. 603, 8 Dowl. P. C. 795; BareJiead v. Hall, ib. 796, n. (a)2 Ace. Doe dem. Prescott v. Roe, 9 Bingh. 104, 4 Mo. & Sc. 119, 1 Dowl. P. C. 274; In ......