Sect. 1.
Action.
certain circumstances to apply for relief against forfeiture in the lessor's "action," if any, or in any "action" brought by himself (f).
Garnishee order.
A garnishee order, made in collateral proceedings between a plaintiff and a third party, was held not to be " a decision in the action " for the purposes of an appeal under the earlier County Court Acts (g).
Petition.
A petition is a "pleading" for the purposes of the Judicature Act and Rules of the Supreme Court (h). It has been said that for such purposes the word "action" does not (though "suit" does) include proceedings upon petition (i); but a petition for payment out of Court of funds lodged there is clearly not in all cases an " action or suit " within the meaning of sect. 42 of the Real Property Limitation Act, 1833 (k). It is doubtful, indeed, whether it is so in any case (l).
Motion by trustee in bankruptcy.
A motion by a trustee in bankruptcy for delivery up of goods taken in execution by a high bailiff was held not to be an " action " within the meaning of the provisions of the County Courts Act, 1888 (m), which require notice of action to be given in certain cases (n).
Public Authorities Protection Act.
For the purposes of the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (o), the term " action " includes actions in the Chancery Division and actions for injunctions and declarations as well as actions in the King's Bench Division, or actions for damages, but not an action in rem (p).
"Proceeding."
The term "proceeding" is frequently used to denote a step in an action, and obviously it has that meaning in such phrases as "proceeding in any cause or matter." When used alone, however, it is in certain statutes to be construed as synonymous with, or including, " action " (q).
Termination of an action.
An action, in the strict sense of the term, ends at judgment (r). Thus a provision as to the costs of an " action " does not affect the costs of an appeal against the judgment therein (s); so it was
- (f) Lock v. Pearce,[1893] 2 Ch. 271.
- (g) Mason v. Wirral Highway Board (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 459.
- (h) 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66, s. 100.
- (i) Re Wallis's Trusts, Ex parte Wallis (1888), L. R. 23 Ir. 7.
- (k) 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27.
- (l) Edmunds v.Waugh (1866), L. R. 1 Eq. 418; Re Stead (1876), 2 Ch. D. 713, distinguished in Re Lloyd, [1903] 1 Ch. 385. See further on this subject the title Limitation of Actions.
- (m) 51 & 52 Vict. c. 43, ss. 53, 54.
- (n) Re Lock, Ex parte Poppleton (1890), 63 L. T. 320.
- (o) 56 & 57 Vict. c. 61, s. 1.
- (p) Fielden v. Morley Corporation., [1899] 1 Ch. 1; Harrop v. Ossett Corporation., [1898] 1 Ch. 525; Grand Junction Waterworks Co. v.Hampton Urban District Council (1899), 63 J. P. 503; The Burns, [1907] P. 137.
- (q) E.g., Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Yict. c. 66), s. 89; Pryor v. City Offices Co. (1883), 10 Q. B. D. 504; Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 31), s. 6; Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Rail. Co. v. Denaby Main Colliery Co. (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 209, 225. See also sect. 85 of the Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), and Re Briton Medical and General Life Association (1886), 55 L. J. (CH.) 416.
- (r) Bac. Abr. Execution, A.
- (s) Fielden v. Morley Corporation, supra. And costs of execution are not costs of action (Armitage v. Jessop (1866), L. R. 2 C. P. 12, 15).
