Part I.—Definitions.
7
Sect. 2.
Cause of Action.
and sect. 74 of the present County Courts Act, 1888 (j), make use of the expression "cause of action" arising "wholly or in part" within the jurisdiction; these words are satisfied if any fact material for the plaintiff to prove, e.g., non-payment (k) of the debt sued for, or its assignment (l) to him, or receipt of an order by post or telegraph (m), took place within the jurisdiction.
The question whether some act gives rise to only one cause of action, or to a number of recurring causes of action in respect of recurring damage, is often of importance in determining the application of the Statutes of Limitation (n).
Part II. — In respect of what Acts and Omissions an Action will lie.
Sect. 1. — Ubi jus, ibi remedium.
Nature of injuria.
4. The general rule is that wherever there exists a " right " recognised by the law, there exists also a remedy for any infringement of such right; in the words of the old maxim, ubi jus, ibi remedium (o). Such an infringement of a legal right is known to the law as an injuria.
Where private right infringed, proof of damage unnecessary.
Wherever a person has a private (p) "right" (i.e., not merely a right enjoyed by him in common with the community at large) he may in general maintain an action against any other person who infringes it, and that without proving actual damage. Every injuria, it is said, imports a damage in the nature of it, though there be no pecuniary loss or damage (q); and, consequently, where a private right and its infringement are proved, it is unnecessary to show actual damage in order to maintain an action (r). Thus
- (j) 51 & 52 Vict. c. 43, s. 74.
- (k) Northey Stone Co. v. Gidney, [1894] 1 Q. B. 99.
- (l) Read v. Brown (1888), 22 Q. B. D. 128.
- (m) Cowan v. O'Connor (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 640. Compare also Alderton v. Archer (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 1.
- (n) See title Limitation of Actions.
- (o) See Ashby v. White (1703), 1 Smith, L. C. (11th ed.), p. 240; 3 Ld. Raym. 320. " Indeed, it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy, for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal " (ibid., 1 Smith, L.C., at p. 260, per Holt, C.J.).
- For a consideration of the different kinds of rights recognised by the law, see the particular titles dealing with various branches of the law of contracts and torts.
- (p) See note (b), p. 9, post.
- (q) "A damage is not merely pecuniary; but an injury imports a damage when a man is thereby hindered of his right. ... So if a man gives another a cuff on the ear, though it cost him nothing, no not so much as a little diachylon, yet he shall have his action, for it is a personal injury " (Ashby v. White, supra, per Holt, C.J., at pp- 260, 261. But see the maxim, " De minimis non curat lex," p. 16, post).
- (r) The novelty of the complaint is no objection, " for if men will multiply injuries, actions must be multiplied too" (Ashby v. White, per Holt, C.J., at p. 262). Cases new in their principle require legislation to remedy the grievance, but not cases new only in the instance (Pasley v. Freeman (1789), 3 Term Rep. 51, 63, per Ashhurst, J.; Chapman v. Pickersgill (1762), 2 Wils. 145, 146, per Pratt, C.J.).
