Standard Discount Company v La Grange
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1877 |
| Date | 1877 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Practice - Order empowering Plaintiff to sign Judgment upon specially indorsed Writ - Final or Interlocutory Proceeding - Appeal from High Court of Justice - Time within which Appeal must be brought -
An order empowering a plaintiff to sign judgment upon a specially indorsed writ is an interlocutory, and not a final proceeding, for it does not become effectual against the defendant until it has been perfected by the further step of signing the judgment; and therefore an appeal upon an order of this kind made by one of the divisions of the High Court of Justice must be brought before the expiration of twenty-one days.
THE writ in this action having been specially indorsed, a master made an order under the Rules of the Supreme Court, Order XIV.F1, empowering the plaintiffs to sign judgment.
From this order the defendant appealed to a judge at chambers, who confirmed the master's decision. He then appealed to the Common Pleas Division, who refused to overrule the decisions of the master and judge. The date of the hearing in the Common Pleas Division was the 8th of August, 1876. The defendant, after the expiration of twenty-one days from that date, applied for special leave to appeal; but on the 25th of April, 1877, this Court declined to grant the application. The defendant then, by a notice dated upon the day last-mentioned, appealed from the judgment of the Common Pleas Division.
Nov. 5, 6. W. G. Harrison, Q.C., for the plaintiffs. In this case there is a preliminary objection. This appeal from the Common Pleas Division is too late. The plaintiffs obtained a master's order empowering them to sign judgment under Order XIV., Rule 1. That order was affirmed by a judge, and on appeal by the Common Pleas Division, and an application to extend the time to appeal was refused. The defendant now treats the order as a final judgment, and contends that he has a year within which to appeal. An order to sign judgment under Order XIV., Rule 1, is interlocutory, and an appeal must be brought before the expiration of twenty-one days. This appeal is in reality an application to rescind the order under which judgment may be signed. Suppose that leave to defend had been given by the Common Pleas Division, would not the plaintiffs have had to come to this court within twenty-one days? In that event the decision by the Court below against the plaintiffs clearly would be interlocutory. The present order is interlocutory, although the judgment signed pursuant to it will be final. If execution issued on the order, then it might be contended that it was final; but judgment must be signed pursuant to the order before execution can issue.
Anderson and Warmington, for the defendant. This order is final. The effect of it is to enable the plaintiffs to sign a final judgment. It may be admitted, that when leave to defend is given, the action goes on, and the proceeding is clearly interlocutory, but if judgment is allowed to be signed the order is final. If an order is made in the course of a cause to do something, it is interlocutory; but if the effect is to bring the cause to an end it is final; to ascertain whether an order is final or interlocutory, the consequences of the order must be considered. A judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Kwong Kum Sun Glass Merchant; Tee Than Song Construction Company Ltd
-
Roe v McMullan
...the matter summarily," did not confer jurisdiction, as they dealt with procedure merely. Standard Discount Co. v. La GrangeELR, L. R. 3 C. P. D. 67, and Onslow v. Commissioners of Inland RevenueELR, 25 Q. B. D. 465, applied. H C., Roe and M'Mullan Moneys due on mortgage declared well charge......
- Warramunda Village Inc. v Pryde
- Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd
-
Preliminary Sections
...433 St. John's College, Cambridge v. Toddington 97 E.R. 245 ....... 48 Standard Discount Company v. La Grange (1877) 3 C.P.D. 67. . . . . . . 149 Staniar v. Evans 34 Ch. D. 470. ............................................................................ 245 State Civil Service Commission v......
-
Table of Cases
...Standard Discount Co. v. La Grange (1877) 3 C.P.D. 67................ 243, 620, 621 State v. Anibijuwon II (2009) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1123) 597.................................602 State v. Ducey 25 Ohio 2d 60 …………………………..................………..….36 State v. Njoku (2010) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1175) 243…......
-
FINAL JUDGMENT OR ORDER OF COURT
...it would finally determine the rights of the parties". This case followed the earlier decision of Standard Discount Co. v. La Grange (1877) 3 C.P.D. 67 In Blakey v. Lathan (1890) 43 Ch. D23 C.A., Cotton L.J. construing the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1883 Order LVIII r. 15, Cotton L.J., sai......