Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

CORRIGENDA.
Page 41, in the first head note, for "warranty," read stipulation.”

76, line 6 from bottom, for (f) after Regina v. Wilson, read (c), and dele note (S).
83, at the end of the page, insert Rule refused.”.
111, line 4 from bottom, after "and" insert " are of opinion."
234, dele the names of the Judges.
251, line 10, for “marginal note," read “head note."
265, for “marginal note, read “head note."
304, in note (c), dele 1.
374, line 6 from bottom, for "settlement,” read "agreement.”
397, line 8, after “promise" insert ]
473, line 4 from bottom, dele the comma after “Queen," and the "of" before

"justices,” and insert a comma after “bench.” Id., line 3 from bottom, dele the comma after “Queen." 474, line 11 from bottom, insert "on" before“ behalf.” 635, line 12, for ( read [ 647, in the head note, for amount to 251.,” read “make up the required

amount." 683, line 23, insert a comma after “ Westgate." 712, line 4, for “ leids” read leies" 836, After the last marginal point, insert Departure.”

[blocks in formation]

The Judges who usually sat in Banc in this

Term were:
COCKBURN C. J. HILL J.
CROMPTON J.

BLACKBURN J.

HARTLEY against SHEMWELL.

Tuesday,

April 16th. MARPLES against HARTLEY.

Common Law

Procedure Act, H. recovered judgment in an action against S., and issued a writ of 1854, s. 61. fi. fa., under which S.'s goods were seized. On an interpleader issue Garnishee, between H. and M., who claimed the goods of S. which were so seized, ExtinguishM. had a verdict, and obtained an order for his costs, which were taxed. ment of debt. H. issued a writ of ca. sa. against S., who was arrested. M. obtained a Judge's order, under sect. 61 of The Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125., to attach the debt due from S. to H.; and the amount was allowed in account between M. and H. S. having obtained an order to be discharged out of custody in the action of H. v. S. : Held, that M. was a judgment creditor of H. within the meaning of sect. 61. : and that the arrest of S., the garnishee, did not extinguish his debt to H., or bar M.'s right to attach it under that section.

IN the first of these two actions, which was for goods sold and delivered, the plaintiff Hartley, on 30th

E. B. & s.

VOL. I.

B

1861.

HARTLEY

SHEMWELL.
MARPLES

HARTLEY,

June, 1860, signed judgment by default for 271. 58. A
writ of fi. fa. was issued on that judgment; and, on 3d
July, 1860, certain goods of the defendant Shemwell
were seized in execution. At the time of the seizure
the sheriff received notice from one William Marples of
a claim to the goods. An interpleader summons was
obtained on behalf of the sheriff; and Wightman J., on
the hearing, directed an interpleader issue, Marples v.
Hartley. This issue was tried, and a verdict found for
the plaintiff. On 14th February, 1861, the plaintiff
Marples obtained an order for the costs of the trial of
this issue, which were taxed and amounted to 671. ls. 6d.
On 28th February, 1861, the plaintiff Hartley issued a
writ of ca. sa. against Shemwell, who, on 2d March,
1861, was arrested. On 15th March, 1861, Marples
obtained an order of Bramwell B., under The Com-
mon Law Procedure Act, 1854, (17 & 18 Vict. c. 125.),
s. 61., to attach the debt of 271. 5s. (which, with costs,
amounted to 301. 58.) due from Shemwell to Hartley.
On 16th March, 1861, Bramwell B. made an order, under
the same section, directing that Shemwell, the garnishee,
should pay to Marples, the claimant, the sum of 301. 58.
due from the garnishee to Hartley, the plaintiff in Hartley
v. Shemwell, in part payment of the 671. Is. 6d., the costs
of the interpleader issue, due from Hartley to Marples.
On 19th March, 1861, Shemwell obtained a summons
calling upon Hartley and Marples to slew cause why
Shemwell should not be discharged out of custody, as
to the action of Hartley v. Shemwell, the sum of 307. 58.
(being the amount of debt and costs in that action)
having been paid by the defendant, as a garnishee, to
Marples, under the above orders. On the hearing of
this summons, Bramwell B., on 20th March, 1861, made

V.

MARPLES

an order that, on payment of the sum of 1l. 6s., the 1861. plaintiff's costs of execution in the action of Hartley v.

HARTLEY Shemwell, to the plaintiff in that action, or to the sheriff

SHEMWELL. on his behalf, the defendant Shemwell be discharged out of custody as to that action. Shemwell was accordingly HARTLEY. discharged out of custody. The sum of 301. 5s. was not actually paid : but Marples had given credit to Hartley for that sum against the 671. ls. 6d., the costs of the interpleader issue.

Field now moved for a rule calling upon Marples and Shemwell to shew cause why the three orders of Bramwell B., dated respectively 15th, 16th and 20th March, 1861, should not be rescinded, all proceedings thereunder set aside, and Hartley be at liberty to issue a new writ of ca. sa., and arrest Shemwell for the amount of the judgment debt. The Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125. s. 61., provides that "it shall be lawful for a Judge, upon the ex parte application of such judgment creditor either before or after" "oral examination, and upon affidavit by himself or his attorney, stating that judgment has been recovered, and that it is still unsatisfied, and to what amount, and that any other person is indebted to the judgment debtor, and is within the jurisdiction, to order that all debts owing or accruing from such third person to the judgment debtor shall be attached to answer the judgment debt.” In order, therefore, to entitle Marples to an order for an attachment under this section, it is necessary for him to establish, first, that he is a judgment creditor of Hartley, and, secondly, that there is another person indebted to Hartley. Now Marples is not a judgment creditor of Hartley within

1861.

HARTLEY

SHEMWELL.
MARPLES

HARTLEY.

June, 1860, signed judgment by default for 277. 58. A writ of fi. fa. was issued on that judgment; and, on 3d July, 1860, certain goods of the defendant Shemwell were seized in execution. At the time of the seizure the sheriff received notice from one William Marples of a claim to the goods. An interpleader summons was obtained on behalf of the sheriff; and Wightman J., on the hearing, directed an interpleader issue, Marples v. Hartley. This issue was tried, and a verdict found for the plaintiff. On 14th February, 1861, the plaintiff Marples obtained an order for the costs of the trial of this issue, which were taxed and amounted to 671. 1s. 6d. On 28th February, 1861, the plaintiff Hartley issued a writ of ca. sa. against Shemwell, who, on 20 March, 1861, was arrested. On 15th March, 1861, Marples obtained an order of Bramwell B., under The Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, (17 & 18 Vict. c. 125.), s. 61., to attach the debt of 271. 5s. (which, with costs, amounted to 301. 58.) due from Shemwell to Hartley. On 16th March, 1861, Bramwell B. made an order, under the same section, directing that Shemwell, the garnishee, should pay to Marples, the claimant, the sum of 301. 58. due from the garnishee to Hartley, the plaintiff in Hartley v. Shemwell, in part payment of the 671. ls. 6d., the costs of the interpleader issue, due from Hartley to Marples. On 19th March, 1861, Shemwell obtained a summons calling upon Hartley and Marples to shew cause why Shemwell should not be discharged out of custody, as to the action of Hartley v. Shemwell, the sum of 307. 58. (being the amount of debt and costs in that action) having been paid by the defendant, as a garnishee, to Marples, under the above orders. On the hearing of this summons, Bramwell B., on 20th March, 1861, made

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »