Reimers vDruce
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 January 1857 |
| Date | 13 January 1857 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 53 E.R. 57
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 26 L. J. Ch. 196; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 147; 5 W. R. 211; compromised on appeal, 23 Beav. 158, n.; 26 L. J. Ch. 201, n.; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 229; 5 W. R. 402.
[145] reimers v. druce. Nov. 13, 14, 1856; Jan. 13, 1857. [S. C. 26 L. J. Ch. 196; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 147 ; 5 W. R. 211 ; compromised on appeal, 23 Beav. 158, n. ; 26 L. J. Ch. 201, 11. ; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 229 ; 5 W. R. 402.] Extent to which a foreign judgment is impeachable, when the judgment creditor seeks to enforce it in this country. A foreign judgment, sought to be enforced in this country, is impeachable for error apparent on the face of it, sufficient to shew that such judgment ought not to have been pronounced. The reasons attached to a foreign judgment are part of the record, and is to be treated as an integral part of the judgment. Bill by a foreign creditor to enforce a foreign judgment against the assets of the deceased debtor, dismissed on the ground of the great delay in instituting the proceedings. A., residing in Hanover, consigned wheat to B., residing in London, for sale. By the delay in selling, the charges exceeded the proceeds. Semble, that the English, and not the Hanoverian law, was applicable. This was a suit instituted to enforce, as against the executors of the debtor, a foreign judgment obtained in the Appellate Court of Celle, in the kingdom of Hanover, in the year 1842. This relief was resisted, first, on the ground that the (1) note.-A receiver in an administration suit of Child v. Ward having obtained an order to defend Ward v. Ward, another suit against the same estate, in consequence of the poverty of the executrix, V.-C. Stuart, on the application of a creditor, rescinded that order, and gave leave to the creditor to defend the suit of Ward v. Ward, in place of the receiver.-23d April 1857, V.-C. Stuart. Ex relatione. 58 REIMERS V. DEUCE to BBAV. 1. judgment was erroneous; secondly, that the Plaintiffs had not come in sufficient time. The facts of the case were these :-The Plaintiffs carried on business at Emden, in Hanover, under the style of " Jansson, Widow & Son." In 1818 they consigned a cargo of wheat to Mr. Hennings, carrying on business in London under the style of " Hennings & Co." The wheat was kept unsold and warehoused for seven years, and it was ultimately sold in 1825, when the charges exceeded the price obtained for the wheat. In 1832 Hennings instituted proceedings against Jansson, Widow & Son, in the Hanoverian District Court of Emden, to recover the balance due for the expenses upon the cargo of wheat beyond the price obtained for it. This was met by counter proceedings in the same Court, by the Emden house against the London house. On the 8th of August 1832 a decree was made by the Emden Court in favour of Hennings & Co. This was taken, by way of appeal, to the Appellate Court of Aurich, and on the 27th day of June 1829 the judgment of the Inferior Court, with [146] reasons appended to it, was given in favour of the Emden house, and ordering the payment of 16,240 Dutch gilders (about ,1350) by Hennings & Co. to Jansson, Widow & Son. The cause was from thence taken, by appeal, to the ultimate Court of Appeal at Celle, which, on the 14th day of May 1841, affirmed the judgment in favour of Jansson, Widow & Co.; and the amount not being paid by Hennings & Co. to Jansson, Widow & Co., a resolution in contumacy was, on the 7th day of October 1842, pronounced against Hennings, directing the payment of the 16,240 Dutch gilders. This proceeding was final, and it was admitted by the Defendants that no further proceeding in the Courts of Hanover could have affected or altered this judgment, and that, in Hanover at least, the firm of Jansson, Widow & Co. were entitled to levy execution on the goods of Hennings & Co. for the amount of the debt, together with interest at five per cent, till payment. Hennings died in 1846, nearly four years afterwards, and the four Defendants were his executors. This bill was instituted on the 29th of May 1855, by the Plaintiffs, who had been all along in Germany, against Hermiiigs' executors in England, to enforce this judgment against his assets. Mr. E. Palmer and Mr. H. F. Bristowe, for the Plaintiffs. The final decree of a Court of competent jurisdiction will be enforced in this country unless there has been some fraud, for when the rights of parties have been in issue and decided by a competent Court, the judgment is binding on the parties everywhere, and the reasons for it will not be examined here; Kennedy v. The Earl Cassillis (2 Swanst. 326, note); Boucher v. Lawson (Ca. temp. Hardwicke, 85, 89); Cral-[l4T]-bmith v. Neville (1 Douglas, 6, n.); Tarletmi v. Tarleton (4 Maule & S. 20); Ferguson v. Mahon (11 Adol. & E. 179); Martin v. Nicolls (3 Simons, 458); Ricardo v. Oarcias (12 Cl. & Fin. 368); The Bank of Australasia v. Nias (16 Q. B. Eep. 717); The Bank of Australasia v. Harding (9 Com. Bench Eep. 661); Story's Confl. (sect. 607). Mr. Follett and Mr. Druce, for the Defendants. A foreign judgment is examinable in this country when it is sought to be enforced. It is in the nature of a simple contract...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castrique v Imrie
...v. Sucker, 1 Campb. 63, 9 East, 192, Dalgleish v. Hodgson, 7 Bingh. 495, 5 M. & P. 407, Novelli v. Sam, 2 B. & Ad, 757, Eymer v. Brace, 23 Beavan, 145, Pollanl v. Bell, 8 T. R. 434, Bird v. Appleton, 8 T. R. 562, Kitchen v. Irvine, 28 Law J., Q. B. 46, Morris v. Mobinsan, 3 B. & C. 196, $ D......
-
Sainton v Carron Company
...the balances from time to time retained in the hands of Stainton. They cited Earl of Hardwicke v. Vtrnon (14 Ves. 504); Reimers v. Druce (23 Beav. 145); Beaumont v. BouUbee (5 Ves. 484); Clarke v. Tupping (9 Beav. 284); Allfrey v. Allfrey (10 Beav. 353, and 1 Mac. & Gor. 87). Mr. R. Palmer,......
-
Harcourt v White
...Lord Stamford (2 Ves. jun. 272); Sibberiny v. The Earl of Balcarras (3 De Gex & Sm. 735); Browne v. Cross (14 Beav. 105); Reimers v. Dmce (23 Beav. 145); Berrningham v. Burke (2 Jones & L. 699); Morse v. Tucker (5 Hare, 79). As to the timber and its produce having been applied in repairs (C......
-
John Dunmore Lang-Appellant; William Purves and Others, - Respondents
...fraudulently obtained, cannot in law or equity be impeached. The Bank of Australasia v. Nais (16 Q.B. Rep. 717, 735); Reimers v. Druce (23 Beav. 145). The Scotch cases support this position with respect to the jurisdiction of the Court of Session in Scotland. M'MUlan v. The General Assembly......