9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondents are precluded from recovering judgment in the second suit due to the judgment in the first suit. 2. Whether there was jurisdiction in the consolidated suits to set aside the judgment in the first suit. Detailed Analysis: Preclusion from Recovering Judgment in the Second Suit: The principal question was whether the respondents (plaintiffs) are precluded from recovering judgment in the second suit (Suit 1923, No. 550) by reason of the judgment recovered in the first suit (Suit 1923, No. 120). The appellants and respondents are money-lenders carrying on business in Penang under different vellasams or marks. The respondents argued that the judgment in Suit No. 120 was against the attorney personally and not against the firm, and thus, they sought to recover the same amount in Suit No. 550 against the firm itself. However, the court noted that judgments are serious pronouncements and cannot be lightly set aside. The judgment in Suit No. 120 was a valid and binding legal adjudication, and it was emphasized that legal judgments cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of litigation. The court referenced Kendall v. Hamilton, stating that if a person sues the agent and recovers judgment, they cannot afterward sue the principal, even if the judgment does not result in satisfaction of the debt. The court also cited Priestly v. Fernie, reinforcing that obtaining a judgment against the agent conclusively discharges the principal from liability. Jurisdiction to Set Aside the Judgment in the First Suit: The second issue was whether there was jurisdiction in the consolidated suits to set aside the judgment in the first suit. The respondents contended that the judgment in Suit No. 120 should be set aside as it was a judgment against the attorney personally, which was not what they intended. They argued that they were under the impression that suing in the name of the attorney would be equivalent to suing the firm. The court, however, found no evidence to support that the plaintiffs were under any mistake or misconception regarding the form in which Suit No. 120 was instituted. The court referenced Ainsworth v. Wilding, which states that the court has no jurisdiction to rehear a case after the judgment has been passed and entered, except in cases of a mere slip or verbal inaccuracy. The court concluded that there was no proof of any error that would vitiate the judgment in Suit No. 120. Conclusion: The court concluded that the respondents could not recover judgment in the second suit (Suit No. 550) due to the existing judgment in the first suit (Suit No. 120). The judgment in Suit No. 120 was valid and binding, and there was no jurisdiction to set it aside in the consolidated suits. The order appealed from was erroneous and was set aside, with judgment entered for the appellants with costs. The court advised His Majesty accordingly.
|
