Maubourquet v Wyse

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 July 1867
• Date: 01 July 1867
• Court: Exchequer (Ireland)

Exchequer.

MAUBOURQUET

and

WYSE.

Douglas v. ForrestENR 4 Bing. 686.

Cowan v. Braidwood 1 M. & Gr. 882.

Russell v. SmythENR 9 M. & W. 810.

Cown v. Braidwood 1 M. & Gr. 882.

Reynolds v. FentonENR 3 c. B. 187.

Cavan v. StewartENR 1 Stark. 525.

MacCarthyENR 2 B. & Ad. 951.

Becquet v. MacCarthy Ibid.

Buchanan v. RuckerENRENR 3 Camp. 63; 9 East. 192.

Douglas v. ForrestENR 4 Bing. 686.

Becquet v. MacCarthyENR 2 B. & ad. 951.

Buchanan v. RuckerENRENR 3 Camp. 63; 9 East, 192.

Reynolds v. FentonENR 3 C. B. 187.

Cowan v Braidwood 1 M. & Gr. 882.

Ferguson v. Mahon 11 A. & e. 179.

Castledine v. MundyENR 4 B. & Ad. 96.

Lebrett v. PapillonENR 4 East. 502.

Charnley v. WinstanleyENR 5 East. 271.

Goodburne v. BowmanENR 9 Bing. 532.

Buchanan v. RuckerENRENR 3 Camp. 63; 9 East. 192.

Vallee v. DumergueENR 4 Ex. 290.

Cowan v. Braidwood 1 M. & Gr. 882.

Vallee v. DumergueENR 4 Ex. 290.

Reynolds v. FentonENR 3 C. B. 187.

General Steam Navigation Co. v. GuillouENR 11 M. & W. 894.

Becquet v. MacCarthyENR 2 B. & Ad. 951.

Don v. Lippman 5 Cl. & F. 1.

Don v. Lippman Ibid.

Don v. Lippman Ibid.

Ridgeway's Case 3 Co. 52.a.

Bonham's Case 8 Co. 120.

Fraunces Case 8 Co. 89 b.

Gallies v. Budbury Cro. El. 62.

Brickhead v. Archbishop of YorkENR Hob. 199.

Lloyd v. Waterford and Limerick Railway Co.UNK 15 Ir. C. L. R. 37.

Williams v. Great Western Railway Co.ENR 10 Ex. 15.

Gwynne v. BurnellECAS 7 Cl. & F. 572; 6 Bing. N. C. 453.

Rex v. Philips 1 Bur. 293.

Don/ Lippman 5 Cl. & F. 1.

Ferguson v. Fyffe 8 Cl. & F. 121.

Huber v. SteinerENR 2 Bing. N. C. 210.

Douglas v. ForrestENR 4 Bing. 686.

Cowan v. Braidwood 1 M. & Gr. 882.

Cowan v. Braidwood 1 M. & Gr. 882.

Becqet v. MacCarthyENR 2 B. & A. 951.

Buchanan v. RuckerENRENR 1 Camp. 63; 9 East. 192.

Ferguson v. Mahon 11 a. & e. 179.

Ferguson v. Mahon Ibid.

Reynolds v. FentonENR 3 C. B. 187.

Vallee v. DumergueENR 4 Ex. 290.

Vallee v. Dumergue Ibid.

Don v. Lippman 5 Cl. & F. 1.

Bank of Australasia v. Nias 16 Q. B. 717.

Douglas v. ForrestENR 4 Bing. 686.

Cowan v. Braidwood 1 M. & Gr. 882.

Lloyd v. Waterford and Limerick Railway CompanyUNK 15 Ir. C. L. R. 37.

Lloyd v. Waterford and Limerick Railway Company Ibid.

Gewen v. Roll.ENR Cro. Jac. 131.

Ridgeway's Case 3 Co. 52 a.

Bonham's Case 8 Co. 114 a, 120 a.

Charnley v. WinstanleyENR 5 East. 271.

Capel v. ChildENR 2 Cr. & J. 558.

Bonaker v. Evans 16 Q. B. 171.

Rex v. GaskenENR 8 T. R. 210.

Ex parte Ramshay 18 Q. B. 190.

The Queen v. The Archbishop of CanterburyENR 1 E. & E. 359.

Fisher v. Lane 3 Wils. 297; 2 Wm. Black. 834.

Bruce v. WaitUNK 1 M. & Gr. 1; 1 Scott, N. R. 81.

Fisher v. Lane 3 Wils. 302.

Vallee v. DumergueENR 4 Ex. 290.

Buchanan v. RuckerENRENR 1 Camp. 62; 9 East. 192.

Ferguson v. MahonENR 11 A. & E. 179; 3 Perry & Dav. 143.

Don v. Lippman 5 Clark & Fin. 1.

Ferguson v. Mahon 11 A. & e. 179.

Douglas v. ForrestENRENR 4 Bing. 686; 1 Moore & Sc. 663.

Cowan v. BraidwoodUNK 1 M. & Gr. 882; 2 Scott, N. R. 133.

Reynolds v. FentonENR 3 C. B. 187.

Ferguson v. Mahon 11 A. & E. 179.

Reynolds v. FentonENR 3 C. B. 187.

Ferguson v. Mahon 11 a. & E. 179.

Ferguson v. Mahon Ibid.

Reyolds v. FentonENR 3 C. B. 187.

Becquet v. MacCarthyENR 2 B. & Ad. 951.

Ferguson v. Mahon 11 A. & E. 179.

Becquet v. MacMarthyENR 2 B. & Ad. 951.

Don v. Lippman 5 Cl. & F. 21.

Becquet v. MacCarthyENR 2 B. & Ad. 951.

Don v. Lippman 5 Cl. & F. 1.

Don v. Lippman Ibid.

Buchanan v. RuckerENRENR 4 Camp. 63, 43; 9 East, 192.

Ferguson v. Mahon 11 A. & E. 179.

Don v. Lippman 5 Cl. & F. 1.

Becquet v. MacCarthyENR 2 B. & Ad. 951.

Ferguson v. Mahon 11 A. & E. 179.

Don v. Lippman 5 Cl. & F. 1.

MacCarthyENR 2 B. & Ad. 951.

Becquet v. MacCarthyENR 2 B. & Ad. 951.

Douglas v. ForrestENR 4 Bing. 686; 1 M. & Payne, 663.

Cowan v. Braidwood 1 M. & Gr. 882; 2 Scott, N.

Cowan v. Braidwood 1 M. & Gr. 892.

Douglas v. ForrestENR 4 Bing. 492.

Goodburne v. BowmanENR 9 Bing. 532; 2 M. & Scott, 700.

Gwynne v. BurnellENR 7 Cl. & Fin. 572; 1 Scott's N. R. 711.

Ridgeway's Case 3 Co. 52 a.

Bonham's Case 8 Co. 120 b.

Brickhead v. The Archbisop of YorkENR Hob. 199.

Douglas v. ForrestENR 4 bing. 686.

Cowan v. Braidwood 1 M. & Gr. 882.

Douglas v. ForrestENR 4 Bing. 700, 701.

Cowan v. Braidwood 1 M. & Gr. 891, 892.

Buchanan v. RuckerENRENR 3 Camp. 63; 9 East, 192.

Reynolds v. FentonENR 3 C. B. 187.

Ferguson v. Mahon 11 A. & E. 179.

Douglas v. ForrestENR 4 Bing. 686.

Vallee v. DumergueENR 4 Exch. 290.

Cowan v. Braidwood 1 M. & Gr. 882.

Foreign Judgement Judgement recovered against Absent Party Demurrer and Replication to the same Plea Effect of Replication in supplying omissions or defects in the Plea.

COMMON LAW SERIES. 471 MATJBOTTRQUET v. WYSE. Foreign Judgment_-Judgment recovered against Absent Party-Demurrer and Replication to the same Plea-Effect of Replication in supplying omissions or defects in the Plea. To an action upon a French judgment the Defendant pleaded, in substance, that, at the time of the commencement of the suit, and thence down to its terÂÂmination, he was absent from France ; and that he was not summoned to appear in, nor had he any notice or knowledge of, any of the proceedings. The Plaintiff demurred to this plea, and also replied that the Defendant was for a long time before the commencement of the suit resident in France, and there became inÂÂdebted to the Plaintiff, who was a French subject ; and that, by the French law, when a Defendant is absent from the jurisdiction, a copy of the process in the action is served upon the Procureur Imperial, and another posted upon the door of the Tribunal ; and that then, if the Defendant make default, the Plaintiff may proceed to judgment; that the Defendant, after the accrual of the cause of action, left France, and at the commencement of the action had no domicile or known place of abode in France ; that the Plaintiff instituted a suit against the Defendant, and pursued the procedure before stated ; that default was made by Defendant, and judgment recovered; and that the judgment was a valid and binding one by the law of France. To this replication the Defendant demurred. Held, that the defence was bad, as, consistently with its averments, the Defendant might have been resident in France, or have had property there when the cause of action occurred ; or might, through an agent, have been served with process. Held by FITZGERALD and HUGHES, BB., that the Plaintiff was entitled to judgment, the plea being bad, and its defects not being aided by the replication. Held by PICOT, C. B., that the Plaintiff, having alleged certain grounds of jurisdiction in his replication, they implicitly excluded all others ; that the grounds so alleged were insufficient, the Plaintiff having shown that he had no cause of action; and that judgment ought to be for the Defendant. DEMURRER.-The writ of Summons and Plaint stated that in the Empire of France, in a suit depending between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the Court of the Tribunal of Commerce of the Seine, being a court of the said empire duly holden, and having juÂÂrisdiction in that behalf, the Plaintiff recovered against the DefenÂÂdant by the judgment of the said Court, and according to the laws of the said empire, the sum of 17,252 francs 48 centimes, which is equivalent in English money to 718 18s. 8d.; and which the DeÂÂfendant was by the said Court ordered and adjudged to pay to the Plaintiff; and the said judgment was still in full force, and unsatisÂÂfied. Defence.-That at the time of the commencement of the suit in which the said judgment was obtained, and from that time down to the termination of the sait suit, the Defendant was absent from the empire of France, and out of the jurisdiction of the Court wherein the said judgment was obtained; and that the Defendant was not summoned to appear in the said suit at any time previous to the termination of the said suit, nor had the Defendant any noÂÂtice or knowledge of any of the proceedings therein. Demurrer and Replication.-That for a long time before the commencement of the suit in the summons and plaint mentioned, he was resident in the empire of France, and while so resident became indebted to the Plaintiff, who is a subject of the said empire, and resided therein, in the sum for which judgment was obtained in the suit in the Summons and Plaint mentioned; and the Plaintiff says, that before and at the time when the said cause of action so accrued to the Plaintiff, and from thence hitherto, by the laws of the said empire, in case of the absence from the said empire of the Defendant in any suit there instituted, in which the cause of action arose within the said empire, one copy of the process in the said suit shall be posted on the principal door of the tribunal in which the said suit shall be brought, and another copy of the same transmitted to the Procureur Imperial ; and that thereupon, in case that the said Defendant shall make default, ,and shall not appear therein, the Plaintiff therein may proceed to judgment in the said suit, which judgment shall be binding upon such Defendant; and the Plaintiff saith, that after the accrual of the cause of action the said Defendant withdrew himself from the said empire, and that at the time of the commencement of, and during the said suit, he had no domicile or known place of abode within the same ; and that the said Plaintiff having instituted the said suit against the said Defendant for the recovery of the amount so due by him in a certain court of the said empire of France, called the Tribunal of Commerce of the Seine, sitting at Paris, in the said. empire, being a court havÂÂing jurisdiction in that behalf, caused one copy of the process in the COMMON LAW SERIES. said suit, to be posted upon the principal door of the said tribunal, in which the suit was brought, and caused another copy of the same to be transmitted to the said Procureur Imperial ; notwithstanding which, the said...