페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

appointed for that purpose. And whereas on the said 13th day of December, 1881, the said Assistant-Commissioner reheard the said claim. And whereas on or about the 17th day of December, 1881, notice was duly given to the plaintiff that the said Commissioner had determined and decided that the said decision and determination of the valuer disallowing the claim of the plaintiff should be affirmed. And whereas the plaintiff being dissatisfied with the determination of the said Assistant-Commissioner, on or about the 10th day of January, 1882, and within 30 days after such last-mentioned notice being given, caused due notice in writing of his dissatisfaction to be delivered to the said Commissioners of England and Wales. And whereas the right of common claimed by the plaintiff for and in respect or right of his said farm and lands is a right of common for cattle, sheep, and horses, and all other commonable cattle, levant and couchant, on the said farm and lands. And whereas all conditions have been fulfilled necessary to entitle the plaintiff to bring this action upon a feigned issue under the statute 8 & 9 Vict. c. 118, s. 56, against the defendants, being the persons in whose favour such determination was made. Now the plaintiff affirms, and the defendants deny, that the plaintiff is entitled to the right of common claimed by him as aforesaid, and that the said decision of the said AssistantCommissioner affirming the said decision of the valuer is erroneous. Wherefore let a jury come, &c.

Procedure

in interpleader,

Issue-Interpleader (a).

Interpleader Issue on Claim to Goods seized by Sheriff.
The 8th day of December, 1883.

}

London, E. C. affirms and S. M. and C. M. deny that certain to wit. goods or chattels and effects [Here give a list of them] in and about certain rooms and premises in the occupa

(a) Issues in interpleader proceedings are now regulated by the Rules of Court, 1883, Order LVII. which see. Relief by way of interpleader may be granted in two cases, namely :-(a) Where the person seeking relief (in this order called the applicant) is under liability for any debt, money, goods, or chattels, for or in respect of which he is or expects to be

tion of N. G., situate and being at, in the city of London, seized in execution by the sheriffs of London under a writ of fieri facias dated the 28th of November, 1883, and issued out

sued by two or more parties (in this order called the claimants) making Relief in adverse claims thereto; (b) Where the applicant is a sheriff or other interofficer charged with the execution of process by or under the authority of pleader. the High Court, and claim is made to any money, goods, or chattels taken or intended to be taken in execution under any process, or to the proceeds or value of any such goods or chattels, by any person other than the person against whom the process issued.

The applicant must satisfy the Court or a judge, by affidavit or otherwise-(a) That the applicant claims no interest in the subject-matter in dispute, other than for charges or costs; (b) That the applicant does not collude with any of the claimants; and (e) That the applicant is willing to pay or transfer the subject-matter into Court, or to dispose of it as the Court or a judge may direct. The applicant is not to be disentitled to relief by reason only that the titles of the claimants have not a common origin, but are adverse to and independent of one another.

The sheriff should apply as soon as he has notice of the adverse claim, and he should be careful to get his order marked "no action," otherwise he may be sued in trespass by the claimant. If the applicant is a defendant he should take out an interpleader summons as soon as possible, but he may apply at any time after service of the writ.

If the claimants appear in pursuance of the summons, the Court or a Method of judge may order either that any claimant be made a defendant in any trial. action already commenced in respect of the subject-matter in dispute in lieu of or in addition to the applicant, or that an issue between the claimants be stated and tried, and in the latter case may direct which of the claimants is to be plaintiff and which defendant. The Court or a judge may, with the consent of both claimants, or on the request of any claimant, if, having regard to the value of the subject-matter in dispute, it seems desirable so to do, dispose of the merits of their claims, and decide the same in a summary manner and on such terms as may be just.

Where the question is a question of law, and the facts are not in dispute, the Court or a judge may either decide the question without directing the trial of an issue, or order that a special case be stated for the opinion of the Court.

If a claimant, having been duly served with a summons calling on him to appear and maintain or relinquish his claim, does not appear in pursuance of the summons, or, having appeared, neglects or refuses to comply with any order made after his appearance, the Court or judge may make an order declaring him, and all persons claiming under him, for ever barred against the applicant, and persons claiming under him, but the order shall not affect the rights of the claimants as between themselves.

Except where otherwise provided by statute, the judgment in any action or on any issue ordered to be tried or stated in an interpleader proceeding, and the decision of the Court or a judge in a summary way is to be final and conclusive against the claimants, and all persons claiming under them, unless by special leave of the Court or judge, as the case may be, or of the Court of Appeal.

When goods or chattels have been seized in execution by a sheriff or other officer charged with the execution of process of the High Court, and any claimant alleges that he is entitled, under a bill of sale or otherwise, to the goods or chattels by way of security for debt, the Court or a judge may order the sale of the whole or a part thereof, and direct the

A A

of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, directed to the said sheriffs for the having of execution of a judgment of that Court, recovered by the said S. M. and C. M. in an action at their suit against the said N. G., were, or some part thereof was, at the time of the said seizure the property of the said E. C. as against the said S. M. and C. M. And it has been ordered by the Honourable Mr. Justice Smith, pursuant to the statutes in that behalf, that the truth of the matters aforesaid shall be tried by a jury, and that the said matter should be tried at London.

Therefore let a jury come, &c.

Interpleader Issue on Adverse Claims to the same Property. The 28th day of December, 1883.

Middlesex R. B. F. affirms, and The P. S. and A. Company, to wit. Limited, deny that the said R. B. F. is entitled as against the said P. S. and A. Company, Limited, to certain goods, viz., 6000 iron bars, which were delivered by the said company to the L. and N. W. Railway Co. for conveyance from their station at W., in the county of S., to their P. Station, in the county of M., to be delivered to the order of one H. L., No. 95, H. Street, London. And it has been ordered by the

application of the proceeds of the sale in such manner and upon such terms as may be just.

R. S. C. Orders XXXI. and XXXVI. on discovery and the mode of trial, apply to an interpleader issue, and the Court or judge who tries the issue may finally dispose of the whole matter of the interpleader proceedings, including all costs not otherwise provided for.

From anything that may occur in the trial of an interpleader issue there is an appeal from the judgment of the judge who tries the issue, either with or without a jury, but where a judge at chambers who hears the interpleader summons does not order an issue, but decides the matter in the exercise of his summary jurisdiction, or refers the matter to the Court, there is no appeal (Turner v. Bridgett, 9 Q. B. D. 55); even although the judge, with the consent of the parties, should purport to give leave to appeal. (Dodds v. Shepherd, 1 Ex. Div. 75.) But any order made by the chief judge in Bankruptcy may be appealed from. (Ex parte Streeter, 19 Ch. Div. 216.)

Where a litigant who resides abroad is for mere convenience made plaintiff in an interpleader issue, but does not substantially occupy the position of the plaintiff commencing an action, he will not be ordered to give security for costs. (Belmonte v. Aynard, 4 C. P. Div. 221, 352.) An applicant in interpleader can have no relief unless he is in possession of the property in dispute. for he must be ready to bring it into Court. (Allen v. Gilbey, 3 Dowl. 143.)

Honourable Mr. Justice Field, pursuant to the statutes in that behalf, that the truth of the matters aforesaid shall be tried by a jury, and that the said matters shall be tried in Middlesex.

Therefore let a jury come, &c.

Issue on adverse Claims to Money in Court.

A. B. affirms, and E. F. denies that the said A. B. is entitled as against the said C. D. to the sum of £2000 (the proceeds of 189 £10 fully paid up shares in the X. Y. Z. Co., Limited) paid into Court by C. D. by an order of the Court dated, &c., and made by Master Francis in an action entitled “A. B. and C. D., 1883, A. No. 51," or to some part of the said sum of £2000.

And it has been ordered by the Honourable Mr. Baron Huddleston that the truth of the matters aforesaid shall be tried by a jury in Middlesex.

Therefore let a jury come, &c.

Judgments (a).

Action on a Personal Judgment obtained in France.

The plaintiff's claim is for £200, the amount of a judgment recovered by him on the 1880, in the Court

of

(a) A judgment in rem by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive upon the whole world. Such a judgment is a binding adjudication upon the status of the thing adjudicated upon. A judgment in personam by a court of competent jurisdiction is equally conclusive as between the parties and their privies in blood, law, and estate.

The party relying upon a judgment should plead it. There is some authority for saying that otherwise the matter might be set at large. (Magrath v. Hardy, 4 Bing. N. C. 782.)

Before the Judicature Acts came into force, actions on judgments of a Court of record must have been brought in the county where the Court in which the record was enrolled was situate, the reason being that the venue was local. See now, however, Order XXXVI. r. 1, which abolishes the old rule as to local venue, and ante, p. 96.

An action lies on the judgment of an inferior Court other than a On what County Court. (Berkeley v. Elderkin, 22 L. J. Q. B. 281.) "Primâ facie, an action will lie on the judgment of any court of competent &c., an judgments

lie.

of, in the Republic of France, according to the law of France, and for the costs of the said suit, and interest upon the said sum of £200.

action will jurisdiction." (Ibid. Per Lord Campbell, C. J.) An action did not in general lie on the decree of a Court of equity. As under the Judicature Acts there are now no separate superior Courts, but only divisions of the High Court, that doctrine will no longer be held to apply. An action lies on the decree of a colonial Court of equity. (Henderson v. Henderson, 6 Q. B. 288.) No action lies on a Judge's order or rule of Court. (Hookpayton v. Bussell, 10 Ex. 24; Sheehy v. Professional Life Assur. Co., 26 L. J. C. P. 301.) But an action will lie on an agreement, though an order is superadded. (Lievesley v. Gilmore, L. R. 1 C. P. 570; 35 L. J. C. P. 351.)

Plaintiff suing on a judgment

not en

In the case of judgments recovered in a foreign or colonial Court, the plaintiff may sue either on the judgment or the original cause of action. Hall v. Odber. 11 East, 118. And see per Tindal, C. J., in Smith v. Nicholls, 5 Bing. N. C. 208, 221; Bank of Australasia v. Harding 9 C. B. 661.)

A statement of claim in an action on the judgment of a foreign Court need not state that the Court had jurisdiction over the parties or the cause, as every presumption is made in favour of foreign judgments. (Robertson v. Struth, 5 Q. B. 941; Henderson v. Henderson, 6 Q. B. 288.)

As to the mode of proving foreign and colonial judgments, see 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99. s. 7.

The 43 Geo. 3, c. 46, s. 4, provides that in actions on judgments recovered in any Court in England or Ireland the plaintiff shall not recover or be entitled to any costs, unless the Court or judge thereof shall otherwise order. Such an order will not, as a rule, be made where the plaintiff could have realized the amount of his judgment by execution. (Chitty's costs with Precedents, 18 ed., 493.) The above provision does not apply to an action on a judgment and also on a distinct cause of action; and in such a case, if the plaintiff succeeds, he does not require an order for his costs under this statute. (Jackson v. Everett, 31 L. J. Q. B. 59.)

titled to

out order

of the Court.

Defence

that the judgment sued on does not exist.

Of payment.

Of release.

Defences.

The following are the most usual defences in actions on judgments:A denial of the fact of the judgment.]—This under the system prior to the Judicature Act was called a defence of nul tiel record, and it amounted to an assertion by the defendant that there was no such judgment as that set forth. If there is a judgment but its effect is misdescribed in the statement of claim, it would not be wise to rest on a simple denial of its existence; but the defendant should deny the allegation in the statement of claim, except so far as related to the recovery of a judgment by the plaintiff against the defendant, and then state that its effect was wrongly described, and in what respect.

Payment.]-By the 4 & 5 Anne, c. 16, s. 12. "Where any action of debt shall be brought upon any judgment, if the defendant has paid the money due thereon, such payment may be pleaded in bar of the action." Such a defence could not have been set up before the statute, as the payment was a matter in pais, which could not be pleaded to matter of record. Of course such a defence is now available, only the mode of stating it has been modified. The statement of defence should simply state the fact of payment, giving as nearly as may be the date. Release.]-This defence could be pleaded in bar before the passing of the Judicature Acts. (Barker v. St. Quintin, 12 M. & W. 441.) The

« 이전계속 »