A judgment (without satisfaction) recovered against one of two joint debtors is a bar to an action against the other: – Secus where the debt is joint and several. – And it is pleadable in bar, and not in abatement. – Such a plea need not contain a verification by the record, or prayer of judgment.
Judgment had been recovered against one defendant alone and was unsatisfied. A separate action commenced against another defendant in respect of the same contract was held inadmissible. The proposition was stated in general terms as follows: ‘If there be a breach of contract, or wrong done, or any other cause of action by one against another, and judgment be recovered in a court of record, the judgment is a bar to the original cause of action, because it is thereby reduced to a certainty, and the object of the suit attained, so far as it can be at that stage; and it would be useless and vexatious to subject the defendant to another suit for the purpose of obtaining the same result. Hence the legal maxim, ‘transit in rem judicatam,’ – the cause of action is changed into matter of record, which is of a higher nature, and the inferior remedy is merged in the higher. This appears to be equally true where there is but one cause of action, whether it be against a single person or many. The judgment of a court of record changes the nature of that cause of action, and prevents its being the subject of another suit, and the cause of action, being single, cannot afterwards be divided into two.’
Judges:
Parke B
Citations:
[1844] EngR 1042, (1844) 13 M and W 494, (1844) 153 ER 206
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd SC 3-Jul-2013
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd sought to recover damages exceeding 49,000,000 pounds for the infringement of a European Patent which did not exist in the form said to have been infringed. The Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office had . .
Cited – Kendall v Hamilton HL 1879
The plaintiff had made a loan to a partnership consisting of Wilson and McLay in order to finance certain shipments. Unknown to the plaintiff, the shipments were in fact for the joint benefit of Wilson, McLay and one Hamilton, who had authorised . .
Cited – Taylor v Van Dutch Marine Holding Ltd and Others ChD 22-Jul-2019
. .
Cited – Moorjani and Others v Durban Estates Ltd and Another TCC 15-May-2019
Allegations of breach of landlords’ repairing obligations – defendants’ strike out application.
Held: ‘ the critical question is whether this second action is based on the same cause, or causes, of action, and not whether it pleads the same . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.305634