Lord Denman CJ descirbed the pronciple establishedin Marriott: .that what a party recovers from another by legal process, without fraud, the loser shall never recover back by virtue of any facts which could have availed him in the former proceeding. Money so recovered was . . received to the use of the successful party by authority of law. If any error was committed in the former proceeding, still the plaintiff is estopped from proving it after failing to do so at that time. If this were otherwise, the rights of parties could never be settled by the most solemn proceeding.’
Judges:
Lord Denman CJ
Citations:
[1839] EngR 647, (1839) 10 Ad and E 82, (1839) 113 ER 32
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Marriott v Hampton KBD 1775
The plaintiff paid for goods bought from the defendant. The defendant then brought an action for payment of the price alleging that he had not been paid. The claimant could not find his receipt for the first payment, and was ordered by the court to . .
Cited by:
Cited – John Ruskin College v Harley QBD 26-Nov-2013
A sum had been paid into court in 1997. Other sums were paid out, but this sum was left against costs liability. It was discovered much laterand paid out to the claimant. The former defendant now said that it had been paid out twice, and alleged . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.311179
