Stevens v Keating
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 January 1850 |
| Date | 18 January 1850 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 41 E.R. 1420
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 19 L. J. Ch. 25. See Webster v. Manby, 1869, L. R. 4 Ch. 374.
stevens v. keating. Jan. 15, 18, 1850. [S. G 19 L. J. Ch. 25. See Wehater v. Manly, 1869, L. E. 4 Ch. 374.] On a bill filed for an injunction, the Plaintiff obtained the injunction on motion, the Defendant appearing and opposing the motion : the bill was subsequently dismissed, with costs. Held, that the Defendant was entitled to the costs of the motion which he had unsuccessfully opposed. This was an appeal petition by two of the Defendants, and it prayed that the-order made by the Vice-Chancellor of England, on the 10th November 1849, on the petition of the Plaintiff's, might be reversed or varied. The question raised on the 1 MAC. ft 0. MO. STEVENS V. KEATING 1421 petition was whether, after the dismissal of an injunction bill for want of prosecution, the costs of the motion in which the injunction was obtained, and which was unsuccessfully opposed by the Defendants, ought to be paid by the Plaintiffs. The bill was filed on the 21st November 1846, and it sought to restrain the invasion of a patent. On the 18th January 1847 an order for an injunction was obtained, the Plaintiffs by their counsel undertaking to bring such action as they might be advised; and the injunction on the face of it was expressed to be until iurther order of the Court. By a subsequent order, made by the Lord Chancellor on the 23d January 1847, on appeal by the Defendants to discharge the order of the Vice-Chancellor, his Lordship refused to discharge the injunction, but directed an action to be brought, in pursuance of the undertaking, at the next sittings after the then present term, and reserved the question of the costs of that application until after the trial, with liberty for any of the parties to apply as [660] there should be occasion. The Plaintiffs not having proceeded to trial within the period specified by the Lord Chancellor's order, the Defendants, on the 29th July 1847, applied to the Lord Chancellor to dissolve the injunction, which was accordingly dissolved on the ground of the Plaintiffs' delay; but the Defendants were ordered to keep an account. 2 Phil. 333.) The Plaintiffs having brought their action, and a verdict on all the material issues having been found for the Defendants and against the validity of the patent, the Defendants, on the 14th December 1848, moved, before the Lord Chancellor, that so much of his Lordship's order as directed them to keep an account might be discharged, and that so much of the several motions on which the orders of the 18th January 1847 and the 29th July 1847 were obtained as remained undisposed of might be then disposed of, and that the costs of that application and of the motions might be ordered to be paid by the Plaintiffs. The Lord Chancellor, upon that occasion, ordered that so much of his former order as directed the Defendants to keep an account might be discharged; but he made no order with respect to the costs, which were to be dealt with by the Court below. The Defendants, on the 18th January 1849, moved, before the Vice-Chancellor of England, that the Plaintiffs' bill might be dismissed as against them for want of prosecution, and the usual order was made for the dismissal of the bill, with costs to be paid by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants. Under this order of dismissal, the Defendants proceeded to obtain the taxation of their costs of suit, and the Master allowed to the Defendants, [661] as costs in the cause, the costs of the several motions of the 18th January 1847 and the 29th July 1847. The Plaintiffs thereupon presented their petition to the Vice-Chancellor of England, praying that such costs might be declared to have been improperly allowed by the Master, and that it might be referred back to him to review his certificate. On the 10th November 1849, His Honour decided that the Master was wrong in allowing to the Defendants the costs of the motion of the 18th January 1847, on which the injunction had been obtained, but that he was right in allowing those of the motion of the 29th July 1847, on which the injunction had been dissolved. The Defendants appealed from that part of His Honour's order which disallowed their costs of the motion of the 18th January 1847. Mr. Stuart and Mr. Grlasse, in support of the appeal. Where a Plaintiff fails in the result of his litigation, he is bound to pay all the costs. The Vice-Chancellor founded hia opinion on the rule laid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Betts v Clifford
...were never disposed of. They are not costs in the cause, pursuant to Sir J. Leach's memorandum (1 Sim. & St. 357). Stevens v. Keating (1 Mac. & G. 659) is distinguishable, because that was, in effect, a successful motion, being successful on appeal. Where a motion stands over and is abandon......
-
Henry Unwin, - Plaintiff in Error; Charlotte Heath, Administratrix of Josiah Marshall Heath, deceased, - Defendant in Error
...form carburet of manganese when in the melting-pot with the metal. In Stevens v. Keating (2 Exch. Eep. 772; see also 2 Phill. 333; and 1 Mac. and G. 659), the specification described a certain effect to be produced by an acid and an alkali, but 1000 V H.L.C., 510 UNWIN V. HEATH [1854-55] ex......