Skip to content


Ali Serang and ors. Vs. Beadon - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1885)ILR11Cal524
AppellantAli Serang and ors.
RespondentBeadon
Cases ReferredBooth v. Briscoe L.R.
Excerpt:
detention in jail - suit by thirteen persons jointly for damages for detention--plaint taken off the file--causes of action, joinder of--separate causes of action--practice--act xiv of 1882, section 26. - .....i had some doubts in admitting the plaint, but having regard to my recollection of the case of booth v. briscoe l.r. 2 q.b.d. 496 i thought it safer to admit it.2. mr. bonnerjee cited and distinguished booth v. briscoe.3. mr. braunfeld for the plaintiffs contended that the suit was rightly framed, the prisoners having been charged, tried, convicted and committed to jail together; that they had incurred expenses together in obtaining their release; that had the suits been brought separately there would have been a multiplicity of suits, which it was the policy of the law to avoid, and in all probability the defendant would have applied to consolidate them, and cited coryton v. lithebye 2 saund. pt. i p. 115; barratt v. collins 10 moo. j.b. 446; booth v. briscoe l.r. 2 q.b.d......
Judgment:

Wilson, J.

1. I had some doubts in admitting the plaint, but having regard to my recollection of the case of Booth v. Briscoe L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 496 I thought it safer to admit it.

2. Mr. Bonnerjee cited and distinguished Booth v. Briscoe.

3. Mr. Braunfeld for the Plaintiffs contended that the suit was rightly framed, the prisoners having been charged, tried, convicted and committed to jail together; that they had incurred expenses together in obtaining their release; that had the suits been brought separately there would have been a multiplicity of suits, which it was the policy of the law to avoid, and in all probability the defendant would have applied to consolidate them, and cited Coryton v. Lithebye 2 Saund. Pt. I p. 115; Barratt v. Collins 10 Moo. J.B. 446; Booth v. Briscoe L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 496.

Wilson, J.

4. Considered that there was nothing to justify the plaintiffs thus joining in one suit, seeing that their causes of action, though similar in nature, were in fact distinct and separate. He, therefore, directed the plaint to be taken off the file.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //