Reports of Cases Decided in the Court of Appeal (Volume 20) (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos or missing text. Not indexed. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1893. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... In Re Forbes V. Michigan Central Railway Company. Prohibition--Division Court--Delivery of Judgment--R. S. 0. ch. 51, tec W. Prohibition will lie to restrain proceedings under a judgment delivered without the notice required by section 144 of the Division Courts Act, R. S. O. ch. 51. In re Tipling v. Cole, 21 0. R. 276, approved. Judgment of the Queen's Bench Division, 22 0. R. 568, affirmed, Maclennan, J. A., dissenting. Statement. This was an appeal from the judgment of the Queen's Bench Division, reported 22 O. R. 568. The action in question was brought on the 9th of November, 1891, in the 7th Division Court of the county of Kent, to recover $60 damages, for fences burned, as was alleged, owing to the negligence of the defendants and was, with another case involving similar issues, tried at Chatham, on the 17th of February, 1892, when judgment was reserved, no day and hour being fixed for its delivery. On the 15th of March, 1892, a written judgment in favour of the plaintiff was handed by the Division Court Judge to the agent for the plaintiff, and was by him given to the Division Court Clerk, who, on the 17th of March, entered judgment in his office. No notice of the delivery of judgment or of the entry of judgment was given to the defendants until the 10th of May, 1892, and on the 20th of May they moved for an order prohibiting the plaintiff from proceeding further. There was contradictory evidence, which is set out in the report in the Court below, as to alleged acquiescence on the part of the defendants in the mode in which the matter had been disposed of. The motion for prohibition was argued before Rose, J., who, on the 22nd of June, 1892, dismissed it with costs, but on appeal his order was reversed by the Queen's Bench Divisional Court. The plai...