In Re Dimes; 26 Jul 1850

References: [1850] EngR 769, (1850) 3 Mac & G 4, (1850) 42 ER 162
Links: Commonlii
The claimant challenged his committal to prison saying that the order was invalid in that although made under an order of the Vice-Chancellor, the warrant had been endorsed with the letters CC.
Held: Such an endorsement did not mean that the warrant ceased to be the order of the Vice-Chancellor, and it could not be challenged. On the return of a writ of habeas corpus, the court’s task is limited to ensuring that the custody arises under a court having authority in that behalf.
This case cites:

  • See Also – Dimes -v- The Company of Proprietors of The Grand Junction Canal CExC ([1846] EngR 55, Commonlii, (1846) 9 QB 469, (1846) 115 ER 1353, [1846] EngR 1072, Commonlii, (1846) 15 Sim 402, (1846) 60 ER 675)
    By a local Act of Parliament a company was incorporated and empowered to purchase certain lands ; and all persons seised, possessed of or interested in those lands were empowered to conveyed their right and interest therein to the company, in the . .
  • See Also – The Grand Junction Canal Company -v- Dimes ([1849] EngR 576, Commonlii, (1849) 12 Beav 63, (1849) 50 ER 984)
    In a suit in which an incorporated company were Plaintiffs, a decree was pronounced by the Vice-Chancellor for England, and was affirmed, on appeal, by the Lord Chancellor. It was afterwards discovered that the Lord Chancellor was a shareholder in . .
  • See Also – The Grand Junction Canal Company -v- Dimes CA ([1850] EngR 242, Commonlii, (1850) 2 Mac & G 285, (1850) 42 ER 110)
    The defendant had been committed for the breach of an injunction which he believed had been unlawfully granted in that the Lord Chancellor, on appeal, had decided in favour of the plaintiff company in which he held shares. The defendant again . .
  • See Also – Dimes -v- Lord Cottenham ([1850] EngR 499 (A), Commonlii, (1850) 5 Exch 311)
    The Court will not, on the application of the plaintiff, grant a trial at bar merely because the defendant is Lord Chancellor and the plaintiff an attorney of the Court. . .

This case is cited by:

  • See Also – Dimes -v- Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal and others HL ((1852) 3 HL Cas 759, [1852] EngR 789, Commonlii, (1852) 3 HLC 759, (1852) 10 ER 301)
    The Lord Chancellor, Lord Cottenham, owned a substantial shareholding in the defendant canal which was an incorporated body. He sat on appeal from the Vice-Chancellor, whose judgment in favour of the company he affirmed. There was an appeal on the . .
  • See Also – Dimes -v- The Proprietors Of The Grand Junction Canal and Others ([1852] EngR 793, Commonlii, (1852) 3 HLC 794, (1852) 10 ER 315)
    The plaintiff had brought an action to recover land. His appeal failed, but the House later decided that the Lord Chancellor who heard the appeal should have disqualified himself, because he held shareholdings in the defendant company, and his . .