Page images
PDF
EPUB

PART I.

does exceed 1007., the difference between the fees up to that time taken and those that would have been taken had it exceeded 100., may then be taken.

THE COMPANIES ACT, 1867.

Registrars' fees.

For every summons

For every order

.

High bailiffs' fees.

Postage.

[merged small][ocr errors]

For every office copy of order

For every advertisement

For every certificate

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

For filing every affidavit or statement on affirmation, declaration,

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

..

5 0

1 6

0 10

additional

[ocr errors]

0 7 0

Same fees for service and execution as in equitable matters.

Postage.]-All letters sent by the parties or the officers of the court concerning the business of the court must be prepaid (a).

(a) Rule 219.

CHAPTER IV.

JURISDICTION.

IN WHAT ACTIONS, 47

Amount of Claim-Set-off

Payment.

Extension of, by Agreement. Cause of Action not to be divided.

Abandonment by Plaintiff of
Excess, or Admission of Set-
off.

When Title is in Dispute.
Malicious Prosecution.
Balance of Accounts between
Partners.

Legacies.

PRIVILEGE, 55:

Universities.

Stannary Courts.

JUDGMENT, HOW FAR FINAL,

56.

[blocks in formation]

ORDER BY SUPERIOR COURT,
FOR TRIAL IN COUNTY
COURT, 57.

PLAINTIFF SUING IN SUPERIOR
COURT DEPRIVED OF COSTS,
57:

Unless Judgment goes by De-
fault.

Or Judge certifies.

Or an Order is made for Costs.
Where Plaintiff dwells more

than Twenty Miles from De-
fendant.

Where Claim reduced by Set-
off-by Payment-Tender.
Defendant's Costs.

RULES OF PRACTICE, 63.

THE County Court, established by the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, is a court of record, and has all the jurisdiction and powers of the old county court for the recovery of debts and demands, as altered by that act, throughout the district for which it is holden (a).

This chapter is confined to proceedings in ordinary plaints for the recovery of debts or damages. The jurisdiction of the court in other matters will be treated of in separate Chapters.

In what Actions.]-The court has jurisdiction in all In what acpersonal actions, where the debt or damage claimed is not

(a) 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 3. The county court, although it is a court of record, is still an inferior court. See Levy v. Moylan, 10 C. B. 189; S. C., 1 L., M. & P. 307; 19 L. J.,

C. P. 308; 14 Jur. 983. See also
Breese v. Owens, 6 Exch. 916; 2 L.,
M. & P. 346; 20 L. J., Exch. 359;
S. C., 6 Exch. 413; 2 L., M. & P.
380; 15 Jur. 431.

tions.

PART I.

Amount of claim.

more than 50l., whether on balance of account or otherwise; but not (except by agreement of the parties; as to which, see post) in any action of ejectment, where the value of the lands, tenements or hereditaments, or the rent payable in respect thereof, shall exceed 201. by the year (b), or in an action in which the title to any corporeal or incorporeal hereditaments, or to any toll, fair, market, or franchise, is in question, where the value of the lands, tenements or hereditaments in dispute, or the rent payable in respect thereof, shall exceed 201. by the year; or in case of an easement or licence, where the value or reserved rent of the lands, tenements or hereditaments in respect of which the easement or licence is claimed, or on, through, over or under which the easement or licence is claimed exceed 207. by the year (c); nor in any case in which the validity of any devise, bequest or limitation under any will or settlement may be disputed; nor in any action for malicious prosecution, libel or slander, seduction or breach of promise of marriage (d). Although the county court has no jurisdiction to decide generally on a question of title, except within the limits just stated, it has been provided by the 19 & 20 Vict. c. 108, s. 25, that if it comes in question incidentally, the judge may decide the claim which it is the immediate object of the action to enforce, if both parties at the hearing consent thereto in any writing signed by them or their attorneys; the judgment of the court will not, however, be evidence of title between the parties or their privies in any other action; and the consent does not affect the right of appeal. Where a summons required the defendant to appear to answer the plaintiff for assaulting his wife, and causing her to be charged with felony and taken into custody, it was held that, notwithstanding the assault was included, the cause of action was in substance for a malicious prosecution, and consequently that the county court had no jurisdiction (e).

With respect to the amount of debt or damage. In a

(b) 30 & 31 Vict. c. 142, s. 11.
(c) Ib. s. 12.

(d) 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 58, and
13 & 14 Vict. c. 61, s. 1. By sect. 10
of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 142, under cer-
tain circumstances actions for mali-
cious prosecutions, illegal arrest,
illegal distress, assault, false impri-
sonment, libel, slander, seduction, or

other action of tort, may be remitted
by a judge of the superior court in
which action brought for trial to a
county court. See post, Chap. IV.
(e) Jones v. Currey, 2 L., M. & P.
474; S. C., 20 L. J., Q. B. 438. See
also Chivers v. Savage, 5 E. & B. 679;
S. C., 25 L. J., Q. B. 85.

CHAP. IV.

case which occurred before the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 61, and
the 19 & 20 Vict. c. 108, it was decided that a demand
exceeding 501., and reduced by set-off to a sum not ex-
ceeding 501., was not within the jurisdiction. The plain-
tiff claimed in his particulars 2271., but gave the defendant
credit for a set-off in cash and goods to the amount of Set-off.
1867., and consented to abandon the excess of the balance
above 207., the judge of the county court having heard the
case and given judgment for the plaintiff for the amount
claimed, notwithstanding that the defendant objected to
his jurisdiction, a prohibition was granted, on the ground
that, inasmuch as the plaintiff, to establish his right to
recover to the extent of 201., would be bound to prove a
demand exceeding the defendant's set-off, the court had
no jurisdiction (f). The principle of this decision still
holds good in the case of a disputed set-off; and the 19 &
20 Vict. c. 108, s. 24, by which it is provided that the
court shall have jurisdiction where the debt or demand
consists of a balance not exceeding 50l. after an admitted
set-off of any debt or demand claimed or recoverable by
the defendant from the plaintiff, applies only to a set-off
admitted before action (g).

Where a claim is reduced by payment, the words Payment. "balance of account" in the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 58, must be read as "balance of account on investigation." If, therefore, a plaintiff sues in the county court for a sum under 501., and the defendant proves that he has paid the plaintiff 1,000l., the court has still jurisdiction, and the plaintiff in answer may show that that sum was paid on an old account (h).

Extension of Jurisdiction by Agreement.]-By the 9 & Extension of 10 Vict. c. 95, the jurisdiction was limited, as above jurisdiction by stated, with regard to actions in which any question of agreement. title came in issue; but by the 19 & 20 Vict. c. 108, s. 23, a far more extended jurisdiction is given, both as to the amount and nature of the claim which may be adjudicated upon, if the litigant parties agree thereto; and now, if both plaintiff and defendant agree, by a memorandum signed by them or their attorneys, that the court shall

(f) Beswick v. Capper, 7 C. B. 669. See also Woodhams v. Newman, 7 C. B. 654; S. C., 13 Jur. 456; Tongue v. Chadwick, 5 E. & B. 950. See, however, the remarks upon Tongue v. Chadwick in Beard v. Perry, 2 B. & S. 493.

P.N.

(g) Walesby v. Goulston, 1 L. R., C. P. 567.

(h) Turner v. Barry, 5 Exch. 858; S. C., 1 L., M. & P. 744; 14 Jur. 1099. See also per Maule, J., in Woodhams v. Newman, ante.

E

PART I.

Cause of action

not to be divided.

have power to try any action, if it be one which may be brought in a superior court of common law, the court will have jurisdiction. This provision is confined to claims at common law; therefore consent will not give jurisdiction in cases of partnership and intestacy (i).

Cause of Action not to be divided.]-A plaintiff may not divide a cause of action for the purpose of bringing two or more suits; but any plaintiff having cause of action for more than 50l., for which a plaint might be entered if it were not for more than that sum, may abandon the excess, and, on proving his case, may recover an amount not exceeding 50l. The judgment of the court upon such a plaint is in full discharge of all demands in respect of such cause of action, and entry of the judgment must be made accordingly (j).

"Cause of action" in this section means 66 one cause of action," and is not limited to an action on one separate contract therefore in the case of tradesmen's bills, in which one item is connected with another, and the dealing is not intended to terminate with one contract, but to be continuous, so that one item, if not paid, shall be united. with another, and form one entire demand, the demand, if it exceeds 50l., ceases to be within the jurisdiction of the county court. So, where the sub-contractor of a railway company gave his workmen tickets or orders for goods, which were supplied by the plaintiff, and the latter brought 228 actions in the county court against the defendant in respect thereof, for sums amounting in the aggregate to 3037. 19s., the Court of Exchequer granted a prohibition, although one claim only amounted to 5l., and many to less than 20s. (k). Where, however, the cause of action consists of items of a different character, as a claim for goods sold and money lent, it is otherwise (1). So rent in arrear and a claim for double value for holding over, under the 4 Geo. 2, c. 28, or indeed any two demands which would require to be stated in distinct

(i) An extended jurisdiction by agreement, though more limited than the present, was given by 13 & 14 Vict. c. 61, s. 17. As to partnership and intestacy, see post, p. 54 and Chap. XXIV.

(j) 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 63, and 13 & 14 Vict. c. 61, s. 1. The provisions of the latter act affect those

of the former, although they are not expressly mentioned. See 13 & 14 Vict. c. 61, s. 2.

(k) Grimbly v. Aykroyd, 1 Exch. 479; S. C., 5 D. & L. 701; 12 Jur. 357.

(1) Brunskill v. Powell, 1 L., M. & P. 550; S. C., 19 L. J., Exch. 362.

« EelmineJätka »