swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Jurisdiction - From: 1800 To: 1849
This page lists 10 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Emery v Hill (1826) 1 Russ 112
1826
Charity, Jurisdiction
The Court was asked to make an order with respect to a bequest to the treasurer of a society established in Scotland for the propagation of Christian knowledge. Held: The English court had no jurisdiction over a Scottish charity.
1 Citers
De la Vega v Vianna (1830) 1 Barn & Ad 284
1830
Lord Tenterden CJ
Jurisdiction
The plaintiff, a Spaniard, had the Portuguese defendant, arrested in England for non-payment of a debt contracted in Portugal. The defendant claimed to be released on the ground that in Portugal imprisonment for debt had been abolished in 1774. Held: The defence failed: "A person suing in this country must take the law as he finds it; he cannot, by virtue of any regulation in his own country, enjoy greater advantages than other suitors here, and he ought not therefore to be deprived of any superior advantage which the law of this country may confer. He is to have the same rights which all the subjects of this kingdom are entitled to."
1 Citers
Lord Portarlington v Soulby [1834] 3 My & K 104; [1833] EngR 932; (1833) 6 Sim 356; (1833) 58 ER 628 (A)
10 Dec 1833
Jurisdiction
The court of appeal recognised its ability to restrain the commencement of proceedings in other courts and jurisdictions as to the same matter. The power was grounded not upon "any pretension to the exercise of judicial rights abroad" but upon the fact that the party being restrained is subject to the in personam jurisdiction of the English court.
1 Citers
[ Commonlii ]
Huber v Steiner (1835) 2 Bing NC 203
1835
Tindal CJ
Jurisdiction, Limitation
An action was brought in 1835 on a French promissory note made in 1813 and payable in 1817. The defendant pleaded that by French law an action upon the note was prescribed. Held: On its true construction, French law did not extinguish the debt but only barred the creditor from obtaining a remedy. This was a matter of French procedure which an English court would disregard.
1 Citers
Mayor of Lyon v East India Co (1836) 1 Moore's PC 175
1836
Lord Brougham
Charity, Jurisdiction
Lord Brougham said: "The objection, in the ordinary case, to administering a foreign charity under the superintendence of the Court, is this: those who are engaged in the actual execution of it, are beyond the Court's control, and those who are within the jurisdiction are answerable to the Court for the acts of persons as to whom they can derive no aid from the Court. Such an office will not easily be undertaken by any one; and its duties cannot be satisfactorily performed; at least the party must rely more on the local, that is, the foreign, authorities for help, than on the Court to which he is accountable."
1 Citers
Don v Lippmann; HL 1837 - (1837) 5 Cl & F 1
Charles Duke of Brunswick v The King of Hanover [1844] EngR 95; (1843-1844) 6 Beav 1; (1844) 49 ER 724
13 Jan 1844
Jurisdiction
Discussion of the question whether a sovereign prince is liable to the jurisdiction of the Courts of a foreign country, in which he happens to he resident, and as to the liability to suit of one who unites in himself the characters both of an independent foreign sovereign and a subject.
A sovereign prince, resident in the dominions of another, is ordimarily exempt from the jurisdiction of the Courts there.
A foreign sovereign may sue in this country, both at law and in equity; and, if he sues in equity, he submits himself to the jurisdiction, and a cross-bill may be filed against him, which he must answer on oath ; but a foreign sovereign does not, by filing a bill in Chancery against A., making himself liable to be sued in that Court for an independent matter by B.
The King of Hanover, after his accession, renewed his oath of allegiance, to the Queen of England, and claimed the rights of an English peer. Held, that he was exempt from the jurisdiction of the English Courts for acts done by him as a soveregn prince, but was liable to be sued in those Courts in respect of matters done by him as a asubject. Held, also, that the sovereign character prevailed where the acts were done abroad, and also where it was doubtful in which of the two characters they had been done.
A foreign sovereign prince, who was also an English peer, was made a Defendant to a suit and served with a letter missive. The Lord Chancellor refused to recall it.
The Defendant then appeared, and filed a demurrer for want of jurisdiction. Held, first, that the Lord Chancellor had not decided that the Defendant was liable to the jurisdiction of the Court ; and, secondly, that the Defendant had not, by appearing, waived any defence to the bill.
1 Citers
[ Commonlii ]
Williams v Jones [1845] EngR 394; (1845) 13 M & W 628; (1845) 153 ER 262
22 Jan 1845
Parke B
Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice
An action of debt lies upon a judgment of a county court. And the declaration need not state that the defendant resided within the jurisdiction of the county court, or was liable to be summoned to that court for the debt ; it is enough to state that the plaintiff levied his plaint in the county court for a Cause of action arising within its jurisdiction.
Where a court of competent jurisdiction has adjudicated a certain sum to be due from one person to another, a legal obligation arises to pay that sum, on which an action of debt to enforce the judgment may be maintained.
1 Citers
[ Commonlii ]
Munden v The Duke of Brunswick [1847] EngR 5; (1847) 10 QB 656; (1847) 116 ER 248
1847
Jurisdiction
To an action on an annuity deed, defendant pleaded that, at the time of making the deed, he was the reigning Sovereign Duke of Brunswick and Luneberg; that the deed was made by him within his dominions; and that, from the time of the making thereof until action brought, he had been, and still was, justly entitled to all the rights, prerogatives and privileges appertaining to him as the Duke of Brunswick and Luneberg. Held, on demurrer to the replication, that the plea was bad for not stating that defendant was reigning sovereign duke at the time when the action was brought or plea pleaded.
[ Commonlii ]
Vallee And Others v Dumergue; Cex 6-Jul-1849 - [1849] EngR 834; (1849) 4 Exch 290; (1849) 154 ER 1221
