Saxon against George Castle, the Elder, George Castle, the Younger, and Browne, Gent., one, &
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 May 1837 |
| Date | 01 May 1837 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 251
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 1 N. & P. 661; W. W. & D. 305; 6 L. J. K. B. 177. Referred to, Churchill v. Siggers, 1854, 3 El. & Bl. 939.
[652] saxon against george castle, the elder, george castle, the younger, and browne, gent., one, &c. Monday, May 1st, 1837. Plaintiff gave defendants a warrant of attorney to enter up judgment if certain costs should be unpaid within four days after the Master should have taxed the same. Defendants procured a taxation ex parte ; and, by an incorrect representation to the Master, obtained from him an allocatur for more costs than they were entitled to. By order of a Judge, on summons, a new taxation was directed, pending which the defendants arrested the plaintiff. Afterwards the new taxation was had, and the costs were reduced. Plaintiff declared in case for a wrongful arrest, and defendants pleaded that the costs had been taxed and a sum found due, for which they arrested. Held, 1. That plaintiff might properly sue in case for a malicious arrest, and was not bound to declare for a deceitful representation to (e) 13 East, 155. See Rex v. The Mayor, &c. of York, ante, 419. () 3 B. & Ad. 573. See also, The Governor, t&c., of the Bristol Poor v. Wait, 5 A. & E. 1. 252 SAXON V. CASTLE AD. A E. BBS. the Master. 2. That the plea was not supported, there having been, in effect, no taxation when the defendants arrested : and thab the plaintiff was not bound to reply the facts which rendered the firat taxation invalid. But 3. That judgment must be arrested, because the declaration (which set out the facts of the case) alleged only that the defendants had " wrongfully and injuriously" delivered the writ to the sheriff, not adding " maliciously." [S. C. 1 N. & P. 661; W. W. & D. 305; 6 L. J. K. B. 177. Referred to, Churchill v. Siggera, 1854, 3 El. & Bl. 939.] Case. The declaration stated that, before the committing, &c., an action of assumpsit was pending in the Sheriffs' Court, London, at the suit of Castle the Elder and Castla the Younger, against the plaintiff, for money had and received, and that, by agreement between the said parties for putting an end to the suit, the plaintiff, on November 27th 1833, executed a warrant of attorney to confess judgment on plaintiffs behalf for 1001. and costs, on the terras contained in a memorandum indorsed on the said warrant, " whereby it was declared that the said warrant of attorney was given by the plaintiff to the defendants, G. C. the Elder and G. C. the Younger, to secure the payment of the sum of 181. in manner thereinafter mentioned, together with the costs and charges incurred in a certain cause commenced in the Sheriffs' Court by the defendants G. C. the Elder and G. C. the Younger against the plaintiffs, and removed into the Court of King's Bench, and afterwards sent to the Sheriffs' Court (being the said action of assumpsit so commenced and pending as aforesaid)," such [653] costs to be taxed as between attorney and client: that the LSI. was to be paid by instalments, viz., 61. on December 28th, 1833, 61. on January 28th, 1834, and 61. on February 28th, 1834, and the coats to be paid " within four days after the Master should have taxed the same; and that, if default should be made in payment of either or any of the sums at the days and times therein above mentioned, judgment was to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Skinner v Gunton, Lyon, and Leason
...process of law, unless it be alleged and proved that the party who occasioned it was actuated by malice. 2 Or. & M. 712, Lewis v. Morris. 6 A. & E. 652, Saxon v. Castle. 1 Nev. & P. 661, S. C. 5 Bing. N. C. 715, Porter v. Weston. 8 Scott, 25, S. C. Davies v. Jenkins. Exch. T. T. 1843. See f......
-
Sophia De Medina against Grove and Weymouth
...to have been done maliciously and without probable cause, in order to negative the presumption of its legality. In [173] Saxon v. Castle (6 A. & E. 652), the declaration contained no averment of a scienter. In Scheibel v. FairMn (1 B. & P. 388), Page v. Wiple (3 East, 314), and Gibson v. Ch......
-
De Medina v Grove
...to have been done maliciously and without probable cause, in order to negative the presumption of its legality. In [173] Saxon v. Castle (6 A. & E. 652), the declaration contained no averment of a scienter. In Scheibel v. FairMn (1 B. & P. 388), Page v. Wiple (3 East, 314), and Gibson v. Ch......
-
Davis against Black, Clerk
...should be shewn wherever the function performed is not purely ministerial; Cullen v. Morris (2 Stark. N. P. C. 577), Saxtm v. Castle (6 A. & E. 652); and in Asliby v. White (2 Ld. "Raym. 938), malice was laid, Williams v. Leivis (Peake, Add. Ca. 157), Drewe v. Coulton(e)l Harman v. Tappende......