Standard Discount Company v La Grange
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 1877 |
| Year | 1877 |
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...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
- Kwong Kum Sun Glass Merchant; Tee Than Song Construction Company Ltd
-
Roe v McMullan
...with the matter summarily," did not confer jurisdiction, as they dealt with procedure merely. Stanbdard Discount Co. v. La Grange, L.R. 3 C.P.D. 67, and Onslow v.Commissioners of Inland Revenue,25 Q.B D. 465, applied. Cur. adv. vult. Sullivan P. :— In this case the plaintiff sued the defend......
-
Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited
...v University of Newcastle [2007] FCAFC 144South Australia v The Commonwealth (1962) 108 CLR 130Standard Discount Co v La Grange(1877) 3 CPD 67Tampion v Anderson (1973) 48 ALJR 11Theseus Exploration NL v Foyster (1972) 126 CLR 507Thomson v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (Unreported, Court o......
-
SZAJB v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
...Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 198 cited Spalla v St George Motor Finance Ltd (No 6) [2004] FCA 1699 cited Standard Discount Co v La Grange (1877) 3 CPD 67 cited SZATV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 237 ALR 634 cited SZDGN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen......
