McHugh v McGoldrick
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1921 |
| Date | 01 January 1921 |
| Docket Number | (1920. No. 6945.) |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
Appeal.
Practice, Appeal - From remitting order after security for costs had been
fixed on plaintiff's application.
Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the King's Bench Division, dated October 13th, 1920, remitting the trial of the action to the Recorder of Belfast unless within ten days the plaintiff gave full security for the defendant's costs to the satisfaction of a Master. On October 21st one of the Taxing Masters, on the application of the plaintiff, fixed the amount of the security for costs at £100, and on November 3rd notice of appeal was served by the plaintiff against the remitting order.
A remitting order was made by the King's Bench Division unless the plaintiff, within ten days, gave security for the defendant's costs to the satisfaction of a Master. On the application of the plaintiff, the amount of the security was fixed. Subsequently plaintiff served notice of appeal against the remitting order.
Held, that the plaintiff, having elected to act upon the order, could not appeal against it.
Sir James Campbell C. :—
This is an interesting point, but we do not think there is any substance in it. An order was made against the plaintiff on October 13th remitting the trial of the action to the County Court, unless within ten days he gave security for costs to the satisfaction of the Master. The plaintiff was entitled either to submit to that order or to appeal from it. He accepted it, inasmuch as he moved before the Master on October 21st to have the amount of the security fixed; and it was fixed by the Master at the sum of £100; that is to say, not only the plaintiff but the Master proceeded to act on the terms of the order made by the Court below. It is now suggested that, having taken this step, which was a deliberate adoption of the order of the King's Bench, he is entitled to sustain the appeal on the ground that had he not complied with the order within ten days he might, although successful in this Court, be deprived of his right to keep the action in the Superior Court by lodging security for costs. That is not right, because in interlocutory appeals this Court invariably and, as a matter of course, extends the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v Aylmer
...2 FREWEN 200 DPP, PEOPLE V O'SHEA 1983 ILRM 549 1982 IR 384 DPP, PEOPLE V O'TOOLE 2 FREWEN 200 LARCENY ACT 1916 S23 MCHUGH V MCGOLDRICK 1921 2 IR 163 O'CONNOR, STATE V O CAOMHANAIGH 1963 IR 112 PEOPLE V CONMEY 1975 IR 341 PEOPLE V CRONIN 1972 IR 159 WOODS, STATE V AG 1969 IR 385 Syno......
-
Kovacs v Governor of Mountjoy Women's Prison
...cannot later bring proceedings, appellate or otherwise, to have that order condemned as invalid: see, for example, McHugh v. McGoldrick 1921 2 I.R. 163. Having freely elected to approbate the order by taking a benefit under it, he cannot later be allowed to reprobate it.’ 28 Hardiman J. giv......