Vallee and Others v Dumergue
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 July 1849 |
| Date | 06 July 1849 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 154 E.R. 1221
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 18 L J Ex 398 Referred to, Copin v Adamson, 1874, L R 9 Ex 352
vaixee and others v doherguk July 6, 1849 - To an action on a judgment, the defendant pleaded that he was not, dm ing the accruing of the cause of action, 01 any pait of the proceedings, nor from thence hithetto, resident in France, or within the jurisdiction of the Couit, nor subject to the laws of Fiance , that he was nevei seived with arry process or notice whatever , nor had he any notice whatevei of any proceedings in the action , not did he appear in Court, or have any opportunity of defending himself against the claim, and the pioceedmgs were taken in his absence, and without his knowledge, privity, and consent Replication, that the defendant became a shareholder in a certain Company in Fiance, subject to all the liabilities and rights, attaching thereto That the defendant was resident in England, and by leason thereof it became necessary, by the law of Franco, fot the defendant to elect a domicile in France, at which the directors of the Company might notify to him all proceedings relative to the Company, or the defendant as such shaieholder That, by the law of France, all legal proceedings afiectmg any party having his leal domicile out of that kingdom, left foi him at such elected domicile, were as valid as if left at his real domicile in France That the defendant made election of domicile at a place in Paris, arid gave notice thereof to the plaintiffs That the assets of the Company being insufficient to discharge their debts, the defendant, as a shareholder, was, by the law of Fiance, liable to pay a certain sum, and to be sued for tie same by the plaintifts That the plarntrfts, for the recovery theteof, caused a summons to be left at his elected domicile, requuiug him to appear in Court at a certain tune and place That the defendant did not appear, accordrng to the exigency of the summons, whereupon the plaintifts lecoveied judgment by default On special demur rei to the lephcation -Held, first, that the facts stated in the replication attoided an answer to the plea - Secondly, that the word " notice " in the plea, meant actual notice alone, and, consequently, the replication did not amount to an argumentative denial of that notice, but consisted of 'a statement of facts shewmg that no such notice need be given - Whether the plea was bad for omitting to state that the defendant was uevei resident in, 01 1222 VALLEE f DUMERGUE 4 EX. 291 a natrve of Fiance, nor at the time of the pioceedmgs had piopeity there- auffiie [S C 18 L J Ex 398 Refettedto, Go-pin v Adamwn, 1874, L R 9 Ex ,152] Assurnpmt on a judgment for 272,7f 7 fr 60 cent teco\eied by the plaintiffs Against the defendant, m the Court of the Civil '['iihuii.il of Pnst Instance of the department of the Seme, sitting at the Palace of Justice at Pans, in the kingdom of France Plea, that the defendant was not, at any time during the acciiiing of the supposed Cause of action upon \vhich the supposed judgment was founded, not tiom thence Continually during any part of the said proceedings tarn aids the supposed judgment, and upon which it is founded, nor from thence hitlieito, resident 111 or within the kingdom of Fiance or the jurisdiction of the Couit in which the supposed judgment was recovered , nor was lie the defendant, [291] during any part of the above-mentioned period, subject to the laws of the kingdom of France, or any of them, or liable to he proceeded against therein That the defendant was not, at any tune before the recovery of the supposed judgment, served with any proiess 01 notice vvhat-$ver , nor had he any notice whatever of any proceeding in the action or hint in whrch the supposed judgment was lecovered, not did not could he the defendant in any manner appeal in the said Court during the couise of the proceedrngs in the said action 01 suit, 01 any part thereof, nor had he the defendant, at any time hofoio the recovery of the supposed judgment, any knowledge or notice whatever of the Said proceedings, or any of them , but, on the contraiy theieof, he the defendant was wholly and errtriuly ignorant of the proceedings in the said iction ot Mat, and eveiy of them, or that the s.ime 01 any was or were about to be taken against him , aor had he the defendant time, noi has he had any oppoituriitv whatever, of Opposing the said proceedings or of objecting to them, or of deft tiding himself from and agamsfc the supposed claim ot demand upon which the supposed judgment was Obtained And the defendant fuither says, that the said pioceedmgs were taken and the supposed judgment was obtained against him in his absence and behind his back, and without his knowledge, puvity, or consent Verification Replication, that, before the commencement of the action ot suit in which the judgment was so recovered, and befote and at the time of the execution of the act 01 instrument of conveyance hereinafter next mentioned, one Alexander Mechin, then being a subject of and domiciled and tesident in the kingdom of Fiance, was a paitnet ,\nd shareholdei of and in a certain Company then lawfully established and existing Hi the kingdom of France, for the supplv of military beds to the (rovernmerrt of the said kingdom, called or known by a certain name 01 him, to wit, the firm of Martin Yallee &, Company, the social pro-[292]-perty wheieof vv is then divided into diveis, to wit, twelve shares, c tiled arid known in the kingdom of France by the name of sols, and which shaies or sols were then, accoidrng to the law of France and the regulations of the Company, tiansfeiable by the holdeis ttieieof, and the said A Mechin Was then the holder and lawfully possessed of, to wit, one share or sol and the quarter qf another share or sol in the said Company , and, being so possessed and biicli partner and shareholder, the said A Mechin, long...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vizcaya Partners Ltd v Picard and another (Gibraltar)
...the judgment debtor had "expressly or implicitly contracted to submit to the jurisdiction" of the foreign court were Vallée v Dumergue (1849) 4 Ex 290; Bank of Australasia v Harding (1850) 9 CB 661; Bank of Australasia v Nias (1851) 16 QB 717; and Copin v Adamson (1875) 1 Ex D 17. Each of ......
-
OJSC Bank of Moscow v Andrey Valerievich Chernyakov and Others
...which that particular mode of notification has been followed, even though he may not have had actual notice of them": Valle v. Dumergue (1849) 4 Exch 290. If there was service of the notice of hearing on the party in accordance with the relevant foreign law, but actual notice was not given,......
-
Maubourquet v Wyse
...v. WinstanleyENR 5 East. 271. Goodburne v. BowmanENR 9 Bing. 532. Buchanan v. RuckerENRENR 3 Camp. 63; 9 East. 192. Vallee v. DumergueENR 4 Ex. 290. Cowan v. Braidwood 1 M. & Gr. 882. Vallee v. DumergueENR 4 Ex. 290. Reynolds v. FentonENR 3 C. B. 187. General Steam Navigation Co. v. Guillou......
-
Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation Ltd v Sedgwick Collins and Company Ltd
...of the Court by which the judgment was pronounced. A good instance of such submission is to be found in the case of ( Vallée v. Dumergue 1849, 4 Exch. 290), in which it was held that a defendant who was a shareholder in a French company and had under compulsion of French law elected a domic......