Todd against Jeffery
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 November 1837 |
| Date | 13 November 1837 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 565
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 2 N. & P. 443; W. W. & D. 613; 7 L. J. Q. B. 1.
todd against jeffery. Monday, November 13th, 1837. A rule made by a Judge sitting in the Bail Court is not more liable to be re-opened than a rule made in full Court. And therefore a rule made by such Judge, unless under palpable misconception, cannot be re-opened after the term in which it was made ; although the Judge, when applied to for his assent, says that he is content it should be reconsidered, if the Court think proper. [S. C. 2 N. & P. 443; W. W. & D. 613; 7 L. J. Q. B. 1.] In Easter term 1836, a rule was obtained, calling on the above-mentioned plaintiff to shew cause why the verdict obtained before the Sheriff (of Northamptonshire) in this action should not be set aside, and a nonsuit entered, or a verdict entered for the defendant, or a new trial had. In Trinity term, June llth, 1836, cause was shewn before Coleridge J. in the Bail Court, and the rule was made absolute for entering a nonsuit. After that term, the plaintiff applied to Coleridge J., at chambers, for liberty to move the full Court to revise his judgment given in the Bail Court. The learned Judge, after taking time for consideration, said that, under the [520] circumstances, (a) The mandamus never issued, the fees in respect of prisoners ordered to transportation having been paid upon this rule being made absolute. 566 TODD V. JBFFERY 7 AD. ft E. 821. the plaintiff might have liberty to make such application, if the full Court thought proper to entertain it. The plaintiff (having, by order of another Judge, obtained a stay of execution on paying a sum of money into Court) moved, in this term, for a rule to shew cause why the rule of June llth should not be opened, and the plaintiff be at liberty to shew cause as mentioned in the rule of Easter term 1836. A rule nisi having been granted, Sir W. W. Follett and Butt now shewed cause against the rule of this term. Basset v. Hartley (a)1 and Sex v. The Sheriff of Devon (2 A. & E. 296), are authorities against this application. Supposing that the Court would, under other circumstances, review a decision in the Bail Court, this is a rule adjudged upon in a former term. Cresswell, contra. In De Rutzen v. Lloyd (5 A. & E. 456), a rule had been made absolute for a new trial; but this Court, in a subsequent term, allowed the rule to be re-opened, and a motion discussed for entering a nonsuit (d)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen against The Committee Men for the South Holland Drainage
...shall have power to agree, on behalf of the trustees, with the proprietors of, or persons (a)1 See the authorities in Todd v. Jeffery (7 A. & E. 519), and Bex v. Eve (5 A. & E. 780). (b) See Bex v. The Nottingham Old Waterworks Company (6 A. & E. 369, 370), Regina \. Trustees of Swansea Har......
-
Field v Mackenzie, on of the Registered Public Officers of the Newcastle Upon-Tyne Joint-Stock Banking Company
...(i) 1 Dowl. N. S. 792: and see The King v. Eve, 5 Ad. & E. 780, 1 N. & P. 229; Bodfield v. Padmore, 5 Ad. & E. 785 (a);. Todd v. Jeffery, 7 Ad. & E. 519, 2 N. & P. 443; Tilt v. Dickson, ante, vol. iv. p. 736, The Queen v. The Great Western Railway Company, 5 Q. B. 597, 1 D. & L. 874. (a) Wi......
-
Corder v The Universal Gas-Light Company
...of Barton, 9 Dowl. P. C. 1021; The King v. Eve, 5 Ad. & E. 780, 1 N. & P. 229; Bodfield v. Padmore, 5 Ad. & E. 785 (a); Todd v. Jeffery, 7 Ad. & E. 519, 2 N. & P. 443; Eossett v. Hartley, 7 Ad. & E. 522, n., 5 N. & M. 415; The Kmgv. Orde, 8 Ad. & E. 420; The Queen v. Pickles, 3 Q. B. 599 ; ......