Reports Of Cases (principally Under The County Courts Equitable Jurisdiction Act, And The County Courts Amendment Act, 1867) In The County Courts Incl by Robert Cecil Austin

Reports Of Cases (principally Under The County Courts Equitable Jurisdiction Act, And The County…

byRobert Cecil Austin

Paperback | February 1, 2012

not yet rated|write a review

Pricing and Purchase Info

$19.95

Earn 100 plum® points

Out of stock online

Not available in stores

about

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1869. Excerpt: ... WANDSWOETH COUNTY COUET. Maech 2, 1869. (Before H. J. Stonor, Esq., Judge.) MORRIS V. THE LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY. The Superior Courts have no power to refer issues of interpleader to the County Courts. Wright for the plaintiff. Mangles for the defendants. This was an issue of interpleader in the Court of Queen's Bench, and which was referred to this court by an order made by Mr. Justice Hannen, on the 25th January, 1869. Mangles submitted that the superior court had no power to refer this issue, and that the court had no power to try it, and that if it did try it, even with the consent of parties, the verdict would be a nullity. His Honour called upon the counsel for the plaintiff to show him under what Act of Parliament, and what section of such Act, this issue was referred. Wright, for the plaintiff, admitted that he could not find any section of any Act of Parliament in point, but understood that the practice of the superior court was to refer such issues to county courts. His Honour said the superior courts have power, under the Act of 1867, to refer actions in contract after issue joined up to £50, and actions of tort, where the defendant is unable to give security for costs. This was, strictly speaking, not an action at all, but merely an issue raised for the protection of the officer of the superior court. It was not in the nature of contract, but of tort, and there had been no inquiry or application as to the costs. It was clear that this court had not jurisdiction, and the order will be so endorsed. Mangles applied for costs. Wright resisted the application, on the ground that the order had been made by mistake of the superior court. His Honour refused costs. Mangles applied to have such refusal added to the return, and his...

Details & Specs

Title:Reports Of Cases (principally Under The County Courts Equitable Jurisdiction Act, And The County…Format:PaperbackDimensions:30 pages, 9.69 × 7.44 × 0.06 inPublished:February 1, 2012Publisher:General Books LLCLanguage:English

The following ISBNs are associated with this title:

ISBN - 10:0217982425

ISBN - 13:9780217982429

Look for similar items by category:

Customer Reviews of Reports Of Cases (principally Under The County Courts Equitable Jurisdiction Act, And The County Courts Amendment Act, 1867) In The County Courts Incl

Reviews