Umpleby v Waveney Valley Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1860 |
| Date | 01 January 1860 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 70 E.R. 742
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Taylor v. Dowlen, 1869, L. R. 4 Ch. 698.
Practice. Revivor for Costs.
[254] umpleby v. waveney valley kailway company. 1860 [See Taylor v. Dowlen, 1869, L. E. 4 Ch. 698.] Practice. Reviver for Costs. The rule that there can be no revivor for costs applies though costs are expressly prayed by the bill. By an order made in this cause on the 25th of April 1860 it was ordered that the costs of the Plaintiffs should be taxed and paid by the Defendants, and that all further proceedings should be stayed except under that order. Costs had been specially prayed by the bill. After this order, but before taxation, the Plaintiff died, and his executors obtained an order of course to revive. Mr. Daniel, Q.C., and Mr. Locock Webb, for the Defendants, moved to discharge the revivor order. A suit cannot be revived for costs: Andrews v. Lockwood (15 Sim. 153; S. C. on appeal, 2 Ph. 398), Bowyer v. Beamish (2 Jo. & Lat. 228), Lancashire v. Lancashire (2 Ph. 657), Malins v. Gfreenway (7 Hare, 391). Mr. Hinde Palmer, Q.C., and Mr. Lindley, for the executors. We do not dispute the general rules that you cannot revive or appeal for costs. But there are several exceptions to it, within which this case comes. One of these is where costs are prayed by the bill. Angell v. Davis (4 My. & Cr. 360) contains an express statement by Lord Cottenham to this effect. Lancashire v. Lancashire does not overrule the dictum as to revivor in Angell v. Davis, although it does depart from the doctrine of that case as regards an appeal for costs. But appeals and revivers do not rest on precisely the same ground. The reason why you could not revive for costs [255] was because costs were regarded as in the nature of a penalty for tort, which died with the person. This ground is cut away when costs are part of the relief prayed. Again, it is quite clear that, where costs are prayed out of a specific fund, you may revive; and costs from a company are nothing more than costs out of the specific funds of the company. Moreover, by 1 & 2 Viet. c. 110, the order for payment of costs is equivalent to a judgment, and is a charge on the property of the company. The decision in Andrews v. LocMwood, that an equitable judgment cannot be enforced in equity, cannot be supported. The judgment was reversed, though on another point. [They also cited Taylor v. Southgate (4 My. & Cr. 203), Jones v. Williams (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hare v London and North-Western Railway Company
...Sir H. Cairns, Q.C., and Mr. Bovill, for the Plaintiff. We do not ask to set aside 742 UMPLEBY V. WAVENEY VALLEY RAILWAY COMPANY 1J. & H. 254. the agreement, or any other relief against the other companies. Our ease is simply that, as our company is doing what is ultra vires, we ask a decla......