Waller v Pedlington
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 May 1841 |
| Date | 08 May 1841 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 49 E.R. 285
ROLLS COURT
[124] waller v. pedlington. May 8, 1841. Where a Defendant's title to dismiss is intercepted by a step taken by the Plaintiff between the notice of the motion and its being heard, the Plaintiff must pay the costs of the application. A bill was filed against several Defendants, and amongst them against the Attorney-General; and it was now moved, on behalf of some of the Defendants, that the bill might be dismissed with costs for want of prosecution. The dates of the several proceedings in the cause were as follows. The subpoenas were served in June 1840, and in December 1840 the Defendants, who now moved, filed their answers; but the Attorney-General's answer was not filed until the 26th of February 1841, and there were still some Defendants who had not answered the bill. The Defendants gave notice of this motion on the 26th of April 1841; and on the 28th of the same month the Plaintiff obtained an order to amend his bill. Mr. Pemberton, in support of the motion, after adverting to the great delay in getting in the other answers, asked, that if the order to amend prevented the dis^ missal of the bill, then that the Plaintiff might pay the costs of this application. Mr. Stone, eontrft. the master OF the rolls [Lord Langdale]. Where a party, entitled to have 286 NICK.LIN V. PATTEN * BEAV. 128. a bill dismissed as against him for want of prosecution, makes an application to this Court for that purpose, and is prevented [125] from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
An v Barclays Private Bank & Trust (Cayman) Ltd
...v. Muswell Hill Land Co.ENR(1861), 29 Beav. 560; 54 E.R. 745, considered. (30) Saunders v. VautierENR(1841), 1 Cr. & Ph. 240; 4 Beav. 115; 49 E.R. 285, considered. (31) Scott v. TylerENR(1788), 2 Dick. 712; 2 Br. 431; 29 E.R. 241; 21 E.R. 448; [1775–1802] All E.R. Rep. 237, considered. (32)......
-
Corry v Curlewis
...said, that it would be contended by the Plaintiff, that the only liability he had incurred was to pay the costs. (Waller v. Pedlington, 4 Beavan, 124.) That such, he admitted, was the rule under the old orders (16th Order of 1828, Ord. Can. 10), but there, upon a motion to dismiss, the Plai......