Walker and Others, Assignees of Bean, a Bankrupt, and Mackenzie, and Others, Assignees of Cuthbert, a Bankrupt, against Witter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 November 1778 |
| Date | 07 November 1778 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 99 E.R. 1
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
REPORTS of CASES ARGUED and DETERMINED in the COURT of KING'S BENCH, in the Nineteenth, Twentieth, and Twenty-First Years of the Reign of GEORGE III. By the Right Hon. SYLVESTER DOUGLAS, Baron Glenbervie. The Fourth Edition, with Additions: by WILLIAM FRERE, Serjeant at Law. Vol. I. 1813. [1] cases argued and determined in the court of king's bench, in michaelmas term, in the nineteenth year of the reign of george III. walker and others, Assignees of Bean, a Bankrupt, and mackenzie, and others, Assignees of Cutbbert, a Bankrupt, against witter. Saturday, 7th Nov. 1778. An action of debt will lie on a foreign judgment, and the plaintiff need not shew the ground of the judgment.-If he conclude " prout patet per recordum," that is to be rejected as surplusage, and the defendant cannot plead nul tiel record. This was an action of debt brought in the county of Middlesex, on a judgment in the Supreme Court in Jamaica.-The first count of the declaration was in the following words: " William Witter, late of the parish of St. Mary le Bone, in the county of Middlesex, Esq. was summoned to answer Isaac Walker, Francis Newton, and John Colvill, assignees of the estate and effects of Samuel Bean, a bankrupt, within the true intent and meaning of the statutes made and provided, and now in force, concerning bankrupts, and Colin Mackenzie, Thomas Bell, and Alexander Grant, assignees of the estate and effects of Lewis Cuthbert, a bankrupt, &c. that he render to them £594, Os. 4d. of lawful money of Great Britain, which he owes to, and unjustly detains from, them.-For that whereas the said Samuel, Lewis, [2] and also one David Bean, since deceased, in the life-time of the said David, and which said David, afterwards, and before the said Samuel and Lewis became bankrupt, died, and the said Samuel and Lewis survived him; that is to say, at Westminster in the county of Middlesex, heretofore, to wit, on the last Tuesday in May, in the sixth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord the now King, and in the year 1766, in a certain Court of Record of our said lord the King, called the Supreme Court of Judicature held for our said lord the King, at the town of St. Jago de la Vega, in the county of Middlesex, in and for the island of Jamaica, and within the jurisdiction of the said Court, on the said last Tuesday of May, in the said sixth year of our said lord the now King, and in the year 1766, before the Honourable Thomas Beach, Esq. Chief Judge of the said Court, and his associates then sitting Judges of the same Court, by the consideration and judgment of the same Court, recovered against the said William a certain debt of £220 current money of the said island of Jamaica, and also £1, 16s. 3d. for their costs and charges bj them, about their suit, in that behalf expended, to the said Samuel, Lewis, and David Bean, in the life-time of the said David, by the said Court, of their assent adjudged, whereof the said William is convicted, as by the record and proceedings thereof remaining in the said Court at the town of St. Jago de la Vega more fully appears; which said judgment still remains in that Court in full force, unreversed, unpaid, and unsatisfied; that is to say, at Westminster in the said county of Middlesex; and that neither the said Samuel, Lewis, and David, or either of them, in the K. B. xxvih.-1 2 WALKER V. WITTER IDOUGL. 3. life-time of the said David, nor the said Samuel and Lewis, or either of them, since his decease, nor the said Isaac, Francis, John, Colin, Thomas, and Alexander, as assignees as aforesaid, or either of them, have yet obtained execution of the aforesaid judgment, and the said Isaac, Francis, John, Colin,, Thomas, and Alexander, in fact say, that the debt, costs, and charges aforesaid, so recovered as aforesaid, amount to a large sum of money, to wit, to the sum of £158, 8s. 9d. of like lawful money of Great Britain, that is to say, at Westminster aforesaid, in the said county of Middlesex, whereby an action hath accrued to the said Isaac, Francis, John, Colin, Thomas, and Alexander, as assignees as aforesaid, to demand and have, of and from the said William, the said sum of £158, 8s. 9d. of lawful money of Great Britain, parcel of the sum of £594, Os. 4d. above demanded."-Then there was a second count in the same form, stating a like judgment of the Court in Jamaica for £608, and £1, 16s. 3d. costs, of Jamaica currency, or £435, 11s. 7d. sterling, being the residue of the sum of £594, Os. 4d. demanded in the action.-The defendant, besides nil debet, pleaded also to the first count, " that there is not any such record of the recovery of the said debt, costs, and charges, in the said first count of the said declaration mentioned [3]...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gammell and Others v Sewell and Others
...is their undoing " As to the effect of the judgment in the Court in Norway the following authorities were cited: Walker v. Witter (1 Doug. 1), Robertson v. Struth (5 Q B 941), Messin v iDnl Mass&reene (4 T. R. 493), Phillips v. Hunter (2 H. Black 402), Tarletan v. Tarkton (4 M. & Sel. 20), ......
-
Sims, Administratrix of Sims v Thomas
...v. RedfernENR 3 Bing. 357, and vide 1 Dong. pp. 4 and 5 in note Buchanan v. RuckerENRENR 1 Camp. 63; 9 East, 192. Walker v. WitterENR 1 Doug. 1. Phillips v. HunterENR 2 H. Bl. 410. Novelli v. RossiENR 2 B. & Ad. 757. Douglas v. ForrestENR 4 Bing. 686. Guinness v. CarrollENR 1 B. & Ad. 459. ......
-
Doran, - Plaintiff (in Error); O'reilly, and Others, - Defendants (in Error)
...the judgment of a foreign Court in such an action is not a sufficient ground for an action of debt in this country. In Walker v. Witter, 1 Doug. 1 ; the ground of action in the foreign Court was itself debt. Another objection is, that the recovery is in foreign money, and the Court cannot, ......
-
Smith v Nicolis
...on the parties in the colony. It is no more than an account stated, on which the Plaintiff might sue here in assumpsit; Walker v. Witter (1 Dougl. 1); and even in this country, a decree in Chancery to account is no bar to an action for the amount due. It would not amount to an estoppel, for......
-
Restitution
...be regarded as based on unjust enrichment, for example, the claim for money owed under a foreign judgment (Walker v Witter(1778) 1 Dougl 4; 99 ER 1), and the claim by a bona fide bearer of a promissory note made payable to bearer against the maker of the note: Grant v Vaughan(1764) 3 Burr 1......
-
Stop and Search Under the Terrorism Act 2000: A Comment on R (Gillan) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
...the Common Law Unitsof the BritishCommonwealth(Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1938)111^115;Wa l k e r vWit ter (1778) 99 ER 1.3Sadler vRobins (1808)170 ER 948.4ibid,948.5RussellvSmyth (1842)152 ER 343.6Whitehead vBrown (1793) 83 ER 315.Enforcement of Foreign Non-Money Judgments670 r200......
-
Canadian Courts Enforce Foreign Non‐Money Judgments
...ForeignJudgmentsin the Common Law Unitsof the BritishCommonwealth(Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress, 1938) 111^115;Wal k er vWit ter (1778) 99 ER 1.3Sadler vRobins (1808)170 ER 948.4ibid,948.5RussellvSmyth (1842)152 ER 343.6Whitehead vBrown (1793) 83 ER 315.Enforcement of Foreign Non-Money......