Wright v Mills
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 May 1859 |
| Date | 12 May 1859 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 157 E.R. 931
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 28 L. J. Ex. 223; 5 Jur. (N. S.) 771; 7 W. R. 498. Applied, Marshall v. James, 1874, L. R. 9 c. P. 712, Mrgotts v. Colville, 1879, 4 C. P. D. 233, Clarke v. Bradlaugh, 1881, 7 Q B D. 153 Distinguished, Tabernacle Pernanent Burlding socrety v. Knight, [1892] A. C. 298.
[488] wright and another v. mills. May 12, 1859.-Judicial proceedings are to be considered as taking place at the earliest period of the day on which they are done. Therefore, where judgment was signed at the opening of the office at its usual hour, eleven a.m., and the defendant died at half-past nine A m. on the same morning . Held, that the judgment was regular. [S. C. 28 L. J. Ex. 223; 5 Jur. (N. S.) 771 j 7 W. E. 498. Applied, Marshall v. James, 1874, L. R. 9 C. P. 712 , Migoth v. Colwlle, 1879, 4 C. P D. 233 , Clarke v. Bradlcniffh, 1881, 7 Q B D. 153 Distinguished, Tabetnacle Permanent Building Society v. Knight, [1892] A. C. 298.] The defendant in this case died at half past nine o'clock in the morning of the 28th Maj, 1858. Judgment in the action was signed at the opening of the office at eleven o'clock on the same day, and execution aftei wards issued. On the application of the defendant's administrator, Williams, J., ordered that the judgment and execution be set aside. Petersdorff, Serjt., obtained a rule nisi to rescind the order of Williams, J ; against which Lush shewed cause. The judgment is irregular, it having been signed after the death of the defendant The law will in many cases notice fractions of a day, and common sense shews that this must be one of them. In some others it refuses to do so ; but that is one of those fictions of which the Courts in modern times have endeavoured as far as possible to get rid. [Martin, B. Is not Edwaids v. Eegmam (9 Exch 628), in the Exchequer Chamber, an authority against you'] That case proceeded on the ground that the title of the Crown by extent prevails against an adjudication in bankruptcy on the same day-a view which is confirmed by Rex v. Bail (Bunb. 33) and fi&c v. dump (referred to in Parker, 126), and is perfectly correct, seeing that the Crown is not bound by the Statutes of Bankruptcy. The language of Coleridge, J., in delivering the judgment of the Court in Edwards v. Regmam, no doubt goes further, when he says that, "as a general rule, apart from all questions of prerogative, judi-[4^J-cial acts are to be taken to date from the earliest minute of the day on wlieh they are done ," but that language is much stronger than any to be found elsewhere, and is at variance with other authorities. In Thomas v. Desanges (2 B. & Aid. 586), where a sheriff took possession under a fieri facias, and at a later hour on the same day the defendant surrendered in discharge of his bail, and afterwards...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Seaford, decd
...the day on which it is entered. The rule has been stated to be a rule of law; see Edwards v. The Queen, (1854) 9 Exchequer Reports 638; Wright v. Mills (1859) 4 Hurlstone & Norman 488. In the former case it was said by Mr. Justice Coleridge at page 631: "The doctrine that judicial acts are ......
-
Evans v Bartlam
... ... Lord Atkin ... Lord Thankerton ... Lord Russell of Killowen ... Lord Wright M.R ... Lord Roche ... House of Lords Lord Atkin My Lords, ... 1 This is an ... ...
- Miller v Teale
- Re Warren, Wheeler v Mills