Professional Documents
Culture Documents
UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES
SCHOOL OF LAW
LIBRARY
TREATISE
ON THE
I.
II.
EQUITY JURISDICTION OF
THE CHANCELLOR.
By
III.
STATUTORY JURISDICTION
OF THE CHANCELLOR.
IV. SPECIALLY
DELEGATED
JURISDICTION
OF
THE
CHANCELLOR.
HENRY MADDOCK,
Esq.
IN
TWO VOLUMES.
VOL.
I.
LONDON:
PRINTED FOR W. CLARKE AND SONS. LAW BOOKSELLER*,,
PORTUGAL-STREET, LINCOLN'S INN.
1815.
\815
W.
TO
IN
!S
RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED.
7U077O
PREFACE.
J.
HE
following
leisure hours
from
duty
of
Work
is
several years.
Desirous
my
all
the
Chancery Reports of reputation and authority, beginning with the most modern, and
concluding with the most ancient. This
course of reading I pursued always with my
pen in my hand, extracting the principles
and the practice, as I read, and arranging
them under such heads as seemed the
most natural and convenient. This is the
secret history of the design and execution of this
originally in-
might have
might have apI
able ones,
many of
Work,
PREFACE.
VI
To
refer a variety
common
of operations to their
principle,
of science
but
if it
acted only, as
is
his Jurisdic-
vulgarly supposed,
expedire,
would be a
folly to
attempt to
if
thought proper
In respect to
Court does, indeed, from necessity, use a discretion, and it is the most
painful part of its duty but in other respects, the system of our Courts of Equity
is a laboured connected system, governedby
established Rules, and bound downhy
precedents, from which the judges do not
depart, although the reason of some of them
may, perhaps, be liable to objection.
In cases of Trust and of Fraud, Chan-?
costs, the
cellors,
it is
true,
"
"
PREFACE.
Vll
go
yet so
far as
ciples laid
**
cer-
of Equity act,
The cases which
various
fixed principles.
this respect
hut they
Courts
are
decided
of Equity have
on
Courts of Law.
may
thus illustrate or
and certain
but
as the
Law
proceed*
If Chancellors were not guided by Prece-
cery.
fifty
decided point
cussed, but
if
is
affairs
now never
dis-
and the
Courts of Chan-
of
first
principles,
carried on.
It seldom happens that a case comes before
and he begins
his decision
Bond
v.
Having
this
Hopkins,
by saying,
PREFACE*
VU1
Had
<$*c."
and superior to
ar.y,
some warmth
Law
in that point
;'*
but Lord Talbot, when this saying was mentioned to him, observed, " I do not see how
any thing less than an act of Parliament can
" If," said his Lordship,
alter the Law ? "
" the
Law
as
convenient,
it
it
now
will
Legislature to alter
Law
it
but
till
that
is
done,
is
11
at present
',
to hear
of Equity
that Equity
for if there be
is
Equity
in a case,
can be no precedent in
it
so that in
if it
any
be the
Rtep.
*
II
Wms.
41
J.
h
*
?.ft.
v.
Stamford, 3 P.
lb,
1
Mod.
Leach,
p. 300. Edit,
by
PREFACE.
IX
'
use
Pre-
Equity to guide
very
ill
us,
if we should disturb
and
set aside
what
but there
wherein a
where a man
is
Man
sees, (and
is
a great difference
is
to
make, and
to follow) a Pre-
whether
it
dence he will
Precedents have been, especially if they
have been made by Men of good authority
for learning, &c. and have been continued
or pursued."
One
is
little
surprised at an expression
PREFACE.
superior Court
anv influence on
He is
my Judgment
14
."
Re-
volution,
who
It
Land
it
common good
that
grounded the
As to
first
inconveniencies,
if
the
Law is
clear,
Judge.
The
them they
;
Often
is
Judge, even
".
Court of
in a
yield to
Cases"."
It was the opinion of
k
Attorney General against
Tyndall, Ambl. GIG.
Wagstaffv. Wagstaff, 2 P.
Wins. 258,9.
m Pike against Hoare, Ambl,
1
*>
PREFACE.
"
for the
\l
by
real
Rules
principles,
may
some reasonable
as
afford
.judg-
a superior
to
tri-
,,J
bunal \
No man
criticised
laid
or
the
From many
The Chan-
is,
and must
be,
of transcen-
dent talent.
cessarily,
time he pleases to decide; no hasty, ofthand, nisi priiis opinion, is required of him.
Such
cides, that
Rro. C. C.
"
See what
all
party prejudices
Alvanley
4C,->.
in
and pasHinchliffe
v
;
is
said
by Lord
PREFACE.
Xll
They are
come be-
sions
No
he Chancellor.
fore
Prosecu-
State
tions,
Tribunal
ject to no
undue
bias of
wrote to
decide
been
at
but
this
an end.
No
to perfection where
Professors, to
keep
impe,rfect
it
come
but what
what
is
to be
Distinctions
ft
ascribed
such a variety of
application of
them
creates considerable
hence, distinc-
Some of
that pride,
which
PREFACE.
decessors in Office
to
XI11
shew their
errors,
constructed.
kind
but by their
sages"
les
{Suitor,
differ-
who only
may
rely.
often occasioned;
the
Law
is
strained,
more
young Student.
especially, to the
We have,
it is
true,
detached Treatises on
many
tainly, are so
Principles
but
rich
Mines of equitable
be expected that
a young Student, warm with the fascinating charms of the Classics, and the gene-
tfous
Studies
is
of
it
to
the University,
should
read with any patience, a variety of Treatises,
series
of vo-
PREFACE.
XIV
before him.
Blackstonc in
his
one of
ciples of Equity.
It
He has
Work.
is,
in truth,
an admirable view of
oriven
of the
into
What
little
Blackstone
of that Court.
11
the
is
first
reduce
all
partly to
have executed a
PREFACE.
Work
of this description
XV
but he lived
in
Work
opus desperatum
the
more we
shall
was impracticable,
be
convinced,
reflect,
that
Chancery
Before the
was not of that opinion, and he immediately began his famous Analysis, and fully shewed he had reason to be so.
On
the foundation of that Treatise, Blackstone
built his immortal
it
Work. In
all
like
manner,
the proceedings in
and are
as
capable of being-
Common
Law.
Lord Nottingham observes of Sir
Matthew Hale, that he looked upon Equity
as part of the
Common
the grounds of
as
it,
and therefore
as
near
it
to
PREFACE.
XVI
the administration of
bitrary in
it
it ".
the
unfinished sketch.
The work,
entitled, Principles
too theoretical,
is
of Equity ,
up
Equity,
many
The
an authority.
to as
is
excellencies to be hurt
criticism
Treatise on
but with
all
its
by any
merits,
little
must
compreit
works
in the information to
and enlarged.
Mr. Fonblanquei
PREFACE.
XV11
died one of
its
defects,
by
his references to
dered
still
From
the plan
was composed,
other Works,
obligation.
The
first
to be to study
trines of his
Art,
and
in
almost
the
all
Sciences,
standing in any
by
faculty
or science,
all
'
FortesLue
de
S.
must
in the
PREFACE.
XV111
Principles thereof;
the Principles
by reasoning from
for
which
whoever
final
causes of things
ignorant of these
is
Science,
must needs be
so that
three,
are
known
known,
too, at
the
least
the
Elements of any
fatally ignorant
at
Science
in general
when
itself
and
of
is
in the
ly.'
if
before
from
him
first
principles
but corollaries
they
are proper
enough, nay indispensable, as works for occasional Reference, but are wholly impro-
per to be
studied as elementary
Books.
Student either
through a
knowledge
of labours to that
series
which
might otherwise
have attained with ease and expedition*."
x
s.
2.
debted
to
Mr. Vesey,Jun.
for his
he
valuable
PREFACE.
Xix
it
but when
sant,
ordinary
effort,
recal, as occasion
may
up and
every im-
store
easily
will
require,
"
am
by reading or experience.
own
ed,
that
if
we wish
the particulars
to fix
confined myself
matters, which
the consideration
to
exclusively
fall
of
under the
Law
is
often
frequently
y
is
Mind,
Philosophy
c 2
p. 425.
PREFACE.
XX
be administered
can
lief
such points
arise,
but whenever
are
determined, in
mon Law
Courts.
every point of
Law
Com-
is
and almost
occasionally brought
of
and
points
of Law,
reasons.
Because,
Chancellor on
the
this,
for several
up
to
Common Law
the
in
Courts,
since the
on a point of
in
Common Law,
cannot be put
the
Common Law
ject.
It
is
Common Law
Indeed,
if
the
Chancellor
lias
of Law,
settled
if
by
Common Law
determinations,.
PREFACE.
it is
XXI
Court
opinion; and though
of Common
Law
for its
Chancellor
the
speaking,
strictly
is
not
bound
to act
Law %
Chancellor
eminent authority
in
its
Common Law
pre.Sci-
ence.
Of questions
of
Law
it
Law
again to
And
in
."
UVes.
*
SI 3.
32.
Mod.
fikins agnins*
A rub!,
lb-3.
Macklish,
PREPACEc
XXII
cerning
it,
a matter
as
had sent
which
this to be
ease, the
Law,
tried at
in
."
this of the
binding
Courts of
plain proof
of
Chan-
the
cellor.
To
Law
in
on Equity, renders the work incapable of system, confused, and irnmethodical, and is an amalgamation which serves-
treatise
only
to
believe,
It
is,
Equity
I have
Principles to system and method.
therefore, as much as possible avoided any
has
notice of
Common Law
doctrines
Common Law
My
work,
my
in
the
readers
original design
An
historical
See Chesterfield
v.
Janson,
Eldon says
in
Dashwood
v*
PREFACE.
bad mixed with
Chancellors
it,
the
XXlii
characters of the
Chancery
Writers
ments
respecting the
a vindication of the
and
would
have
very
considerably
encreased the size and price of the Work,
without contributing much to its utility,
I
dropped
this part of
my
design,
though
Many persons
which called
for the
Legislature
but this
after
in
its
motions
but
in all its
PREFACE.
XXIV
it is
in
\\
itnessing
my humble apprehension,
wisdom and
ralleled
occasionally,
ciples
all
utility
exhibiting,
the
to aid
it
Man
is
fully aware,
In an English
with
all his
thorities
in point,
than Cicero
and
it is fit
it
should be
so,
it
for
ought
TABLE OF COxNTEXTS.
VOL.
CHAP.
I.
(1
Ordering Writs
to be
Bag
made
Office
ge.
ib. etc.
Common Pleas
Supplicavit
.11
12
Writs of Error
Quashing and superseding of Writs
15, etc.
Writ of Replevin
Writ de Cautione admiltanda
.
.18
19
14
.It
CHAP.
ib.
Removal of Coroners
18
14
Patents
10
Writ of Certiorari
Writs of Prohibition
II.
221
Lost
VOL.
I.
&
22
82,
eh
XXVI
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
prevention of praud.
To restrain
\\\\i
Continued.
the infringement
Page.
of Patents 113
To stay Waste
To restrain .sale of Books and printed
Music or Prints
To restrain Assignment of negotiable
.
Securities
To
hy
115
123
127
Bills of Peace
TABLE OF CONTENT^.
XXVlii
Page.
FRA CD.
Coiii in ued.
In Insurances
Verdict
In
234
236
In Judgment
In Decree
ib.
Assignment of Dower
Cto
Me Zaa?
Custom
244
Jointure
of'
247
252
Fraudulent Devises
Enabling another
By destroying
251
London
By prevention of
Employing
243,
On Power to
0>z
240, etc.
influence
i? V illusory
238
On Covenants
Undue
237
In Probate
//?
ib.
to
253
commit a Fraud
256
257
or concealing Deeds
Puffers at Sales
257
260
Form
261
of Relief in Cases of
INFANTS.
262, 263
263, 264
Maintenance of
Marriages of Infant Wards of Chancery
Agreements of, before Marriage
.
Infant Trustees
SPECIFIC
262
271
282
ii.
558
PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENTS.
286
Specific
ib.
vol.
performance of
288
287
Contracts for
295
Stat. 29 Car.
298
2. c. 3. 8, 4.
this
Statute
ib,
TABLE OF CONTEXTS.
XXiX
Pag..
performance of AGREEMENT.
specific
Parol
enforced,
pari performance
What
Continued.
is
299, 300
303
305
309
renew a Li
to
procure Wife
to purchase
to settle
312
309
to
Lands
313
a particular Estate
ib.
lay out
When
specific
Money
purchase of Land
in the
Performance refused
Agreement
to
build
to refer to
319
316
Arbitration
320
321
Concealment,
ground
to resist
a specific Performance
a parol waiver of
Illegal Agreement
So,
the
Agreement
.
325
Voluntary Agreement
ib.
328
328
Where
with
Felony
to
321
323
perform
.
331
Misconduct in party
or
a Lease
Or Insolvency
332
333
a Jointure
Performance
332
to
resist
,
a sped'
TABLE OFCONTENTS.
XXX
Page.
SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENT.
Continued.
335
336
Want of Certainty
Want of Title
ib.
341
Of Compensation
342
356
208, 212,282
Trusts described
Articles before
353, 359
Construction of
360
Marriage
50, 360
Fine affecting
Recovery
361
ib.
Express, created by
Deed
365
Marriage Settlement
in
366
in Conveyances to Purchasers
406
way
of Mortgage or
otherwise for Payment of Debts
412
in Assignments of Choses in Action
433
in Conveyances by
Created by Will
437
441
of Wills
Devises on, for payment of Debts and Le-
Rules in
the Construction
Vol.
gacies
Executory
ii.
480, etc.
440, 445
Implied
Arising
out of
Administrator
Office
466
of Executor
or
466
Administration of Assets
t
451 etc.
466, etc.
473
1
Payment of Debts
2.
of Legacies
474
ii-
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
VOL.
TRUSTS.
XVXi
II.
Contin ued.
Page.
Donatio
Specific
Vested
Lapsed
.12
19
Conditional
24
33
,.
To Charity
Interest
on
.64
Accumulative
Ademption of
.74
'*
Of Residue
81
Abatement of
By purchases
93
97
name of another
with
notice of a Trust
purchases
By
in
Lien of Vendor
Resulting
0i>
97, 107
1
J3?/
Trustees or Executors
J3?/
Trustees
to
103
1
Breaches of
Allowances
40
49
129, etc.
Removal of Trustee
ib. etc.
131
133
CHANCERY PRACTICE.
how commenced
Frame of Bills
Suit
Letter missive
%
'
and Subpoena
.
135
ib. etc.
Parties to Bills
Appearance
ot>
bJ
TABLE OF CONTENTS,
XXXH
chancery practice.
Page-
Continued.
For an Injunction
a Receiver
187
199
206
same purpose
to
213
swer separately
215
216
ib.
212
may an-
For leave
ib.
a Bill
the
202
208
answer
199
reference of Title
to
187,223
To amend Bitt
To take Bill pro confesso
To examine Witnesses de bene esse
For payment of Money into Court
To
182
For time
172
a Writ of Xe Exeat
a Guardian
For a
170
220
is for the
an
Infant
224
of
That Answer may be taken without Signature ib.
Demurrer
ib.
benefit
Plea
Answer
'
235
259
275
273
such as,
to refer
nence
277
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
XX\..i
Page.
chancery PRACTICE.
Continued.
elect to
or in Equity
For a Reference as
280
to Title,
on a Rill
282
an Injunction
For amendment of Pleadings
To dismiss Bill
To
Law
sue at
dissolve
282
286
295
examine
to
99
304
307
Witib.
315
To enlarge Publication
317
For
examination
Witnesses after
of
Publication
320
325
Civss Rill
to
Of
directing
an
343
hear Judgment
Decree
330
down Cause
Subpoena
326
Evidence
Selling
the
Issue, a
Case, or
Law
363
370
373
Law
346
an Action at
Rehearing
344
ib.
375
376
377
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
XXX IV
Page
chancery
Continued.
PRACTICE.
may
That Trustee
tate
Es-
tease Infant's
378
into,
378
'
For leave
to prosecute or
a Decree
come in under
378
may
That Purchaser
chase
in
purchase Money
file
may
legatee
Master's Report
383
a Bill, or that
to
389
395
of Revivor
Supplemental Bill
ib.
Farther Directions
.
386
Exceptions
382
may
That Executor
396-
401
408
Bill of Review
.413
434
Petitions in
ib.
may pay
Costs
381
To open Biddings
Appeal
379
Causes
441
Accountant General
chap.
442
in.
STATUTORY JURISDICTION.
In Admiralty Cases
Under
14
tices to
cy
15
8. c.
Aliens
Under 25 Hen.
2. respecting
of Delegates
Under i he Statu I es
19. s. 4*
Bankruptcy
Commission of Bankrupt
449
respecting Court
in
Appren-
8. c.
447
Hen.
ib.
451
454
xxxv
TABLE OF CONTENTS,
Page
Bankrupt
<>/'
and separate
461
superseding of
467
second
475
454, 476
Act of Bankruptcy
481
Provisional Assignment
483
of the Bankrupt
Property
the
485
Proof of Debts
Of Lien and Set-off
498
510
Election of Creditors
515
Stoppages in Transitu
518
51P
Assignees
524
duty of
Dividend
of
Surplus
552
Infant Trustees
Marriage Act
Act
554
557
558
.561
Private Acts
553
549
friendly Society
547
.548
Arbitration Act
543
Charitable Uses
Jews
535
Bankrupt" s Allowance
531
Certificate
effect
527
561
562
ih.
XXXVi
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAP.
IV.
NAMES OF
ABEL
v.
Heathcote
v.
391
v.
201,2:21,396
Abinsjdon, Lord,
Abrahall r. Bub
Abraham
v.
v.
Butter
.
Dodgson
ii.
287
i.
115
ii.
228
ii. 110
Ackrovd v. Suiithson
Acton v. Market
ii. 179
.
Adair v. JVew River Company ii.
147, 148
Adair v. Shaw i. 460, ii. 103,
113, 424
ii. 540
Adams, exparte
Adams v. Bohun
ii. 204
i. 518
v. Buckland
v.
Gale
Merrick
v.
Pierce
v.
Weare
Addison v. Dawson
v. Hindmarsh
- v. Walker
Adlington v, Cann
Agar v. Fairfax
ii.
i.
i.
v.
i.
476
385
324
ii.592
437, 4 10
ii.
ii.
i.
117
30
i. 240
199,201
.
i. 9, 10
Aiscough, exparte
ii.
403
Akerman, exparte
Akers v. Chancey
ii. 205
.
ii. 338
Alam v. Jourdan
.
Albans, St. Duke of v. Beauclerk
.
ii.
Alardes v. Cambel
Alcock, exparte
Alder jou v, Temple
Aldrich
Cooper
v.
203, 407,
i.
499
ii.
Abell exparte
Abergaveny
ii.
390
ii. 404
Abergaveny ii.
Nodes
CASES.
72, 73
ii.
ii.
i,
556
463
4 i2
:
Aldridgev. Mesner
Allan
v.
i.
Thompson
Allan
v.
542
290
ii. 73
ii. 467
Allen, exparte
Allen, v. Allen
ii.
i.
Callow
v.
v.
Downes
v.
Hancoru
Harding
Pendlebury
v.
v.
148
i.
155, 158
i.300, ii. 346
i.
Bower
v.
147, 148
ii.
121
i.
337
i.
391
57
105
391
i.
250
i.
:j91
ii.
Poulton
Aller v. Jones
Allerton v. Knowell
Alexander v. Alexander
v. M'Cullock
v.
i.
i.
Alley
v.
Alleyne
Alpha
Alleyne
v.
v.
Alsager
Payman
v.
v.
177,
Johnson
ii.
Rowley
ii.
290
279
152
i.
136
i.
ii.
Alston
\.
Alston
A mas v. Korner
Amrsbury v. Browne
Amhurst
Ainler
v.
Amsinck
Ancaster
i.
v. Dowling
Amler
v.
Barclay
v.
\.
v.
Dwyer
413
318
ii.184, ls;
Mayer
193
i.
i.
rson, exparte
27
ii.
475
ii.560
i.
ii.
489, 490
159j 327
xxxvm
NAMES OF
CASES,
Vol. Page.
Anderson
Andree
v.
v.
Andrew
Clarke
v.
Eminerson
v.
v.
Eminot
v.
Palmer
Androvin
i.
ii.
Poilblanc
v.
Aniel, exparte
v.
ii.
Clarke
Angerstein
v.
Annaud
Hunt
Honeywood
v.
ii.
ii.
181
i.
509
v.
East India
86
327
i.
i.
Appleyard v. Seton
Apreece v. Apreece
Archer v. Mosse
v.Pope
v.
ii.
i.
i.
v.
Company
ii-
v. Swanton
Armstrong, exparte
Arnold v. Arnold
v.
Ashton
Thompson
ii.
ii.257
v.
Chapman
v.
Kempstead
Arrowsmith, exparte
Arthington v. I'awkes
Artis, exparte
Trevilieu
Ascough v. Johnson
Ash v. Rode
.
220
214
503
ii.
591
i.46&
ii.
Ashton
8, 10, 11,
ii.
255
148
436
75,
Ashurst v. Eyre
Askenhurst v. James
Askew
v.
Astley
Aston
Aston
ii.
i.
Com-
Poulterer's
pany
v.
v.
v.
336
ii.
Astell v.
Montgomery
Weldon
40
ii.
33
Aston i. 193, 392. ii. 300
Lord Exeter
i. 166.
i.
30O
80
433
260
ii.
Astrey's case
*-
Atherton v. Worth
Atkins v. Fan*
v. Hiccocks
v.
Hill
i.
i.
.
i.
18
ii.
ii.
300
i. 439
Atkinson v. Hutchinson
v. Leonard i. 23. ii. 185
v. Turner
ii. 12
v.
Wright
ii.
6, 299,
ii.
36
v.
Andrew
ii.
v.
Webb
Attorney General
55, 57
v. Backhouse ii. 130, 255
of
v. Corporation
Bedford
.
ii. 59, 62
v.
Berryman
16
v.
ii.
317
v.
ii.
591
v.
8
i. 502
ii. 48
ii. 474
i. 132
ii. 509
v.
v.
Black
ii. 59
Bishop of Chester ii. 53
Boultbee
ii. 58
Bower
ii. 112
Bowles ii. 51, 52, 54
Bowyer
ii. 58, 112
Breeton
ii. 139
v.
Brewer's
i.
i.
ii.
v.
v.
206
369
424
East India
Arm iter
v.
i.
Snatt
Nabob of,
Lord,
177
11,64
ii.
Ardglasse v. Muschamp
Armitage, exparte
<
77
367
v. Bailie
216
Company
Smith
v.
Arcot,
ii.
Kirkhall
s,
Antrobus
v.
Ashley, exparte
Ashe's Case
Ashley v. Pococke
85, 88
152
ii.
197
i. 307
154, 287
v.
Annandale
Ashly
272,
ii. 17
i.
lO,
8,
115,398,421
ii.
Smith
Angier
v.
362
384
442
204
ii.
Partington
v.
Angier
Ashburnham
230,
i.
ii.
11, 75,
against Wrigley
Andrews
Vol. Pagp.i
Ashburnerv. M'Guire
402
ii. 296
270
ii.
ii. 89
ii.
'
v.
Maltby
Palmer
v.
v.
v.
v.
Lord Clarendon
v.
v.
ii.
i.
130
313
227
i.
42-3
ii.
v.
109,
41
Company
53
425
Bucknall ii. 140, 148
Butler i. 364. ii. 105
Caldwell
i. 502
i.
i.
ii.
v.
Clarke
i.
91,
ii.
(54
ii.
56
NAMES OF
v.
ii.
v.
Crispin
v.
Davis
v.
Day
i.
v.
v.
v.
53
Smart
i.
v.
Gubu
v.
Haberdasher's:
Com-
Harrow School
ii.
Hartley
n.
Heath
Green
ii.
pany
ii.
Herrick
v.
Hooper
v.
Hudson
v.
ii.
ITS
- v.
Nichol
- v.
Oglander
- v.
Owen
ii.
58
130
- v.
Packhurst
Parker
v Parkin
ii.
592
- v.
ii.
139
ii.
ii.
Sparkes
v.Talbot
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
'Fancied
Tiler
i.
ii.
11,77
ii. 580, 584
ii. 53, 54
V Parnthei
V Parsons
V P
ii. 63
v. Trice ii, 50, 59, 60, 01
Pref.
i.
53,
i.
ii.
58
487
50, 51
i.
ii.
53, 54,
ii.
58
Whiteley
v.
ii.
57, 58,
139, 396
Whorewood
v.
i.
387.
v.
Williams
Winchelsea
v.
Wyburgh
v.
ii.
v.
Halsey
v.
Ward
v.
312,
137
ii.
53
49, 58
145, 343
ii.
ii.
- v. Youne
o
Atwood v. Atwood
Aubrey v. Popkin
Audley v. Audley
Awbrey
viii.
54
212
i; 261,439.
ii. 198, 583
ii.
v.
Austen
Avelyn
61
53
592
Tomkyns 502. ii. 52
Tonna ii. 59. ii. 427
Turner
ii. 412
v.
59
ii.
ii.
v.
ii.
ii.
v.
139
ii.
Tyndal
497, 502.
Vernon
v. Vigors
v. Wansay
Ward
Weymouth
~ Whitehurst
(U
5o
242,390
ii. 63
ii.
89
ii. 94
ii. 54
59
Merrick
ii. 51, 52
ii. 59, 00
Middleton
Milner
i.
316
Minshall
ii. 57, 58
Mountnorris
i. 502
. v. Nash
ii. 53
- v. Newcombe
ii. 289
63, 421
ii.
139, 441
ii.
v.
Hutchinson
Jackson ii. 139,147,234
Janes
ii. 139
Johnson
ii. 59
Johnstone
i.
82. ii.
106, 108
Leigh
ii. 62
Lock
ii.
62
Mayor
ii.
v.
'
v. Griffith
v.
Kuper
Sandys
V.
v.
v.
v.
55, 474
ii. 295, '297
Finch
Foundling Hospital ii.
ii.
ii.
Siderfin
v.
v.
Scott
iI reaves
v.
-~
v.
v.
i.
5s
62
ii. 91
ii. 56
i.
40S
Pyle
v.
v.
v.
13
Vol
Attorney General
v. Rigbj
Robins
174
Doughty
Downing
ii.
Fowler
Goulding
56
62
ii. 56
ii.
57
i. 502
58, 130
ii. 130
ii. 57
v.
ii.
51, '294,
v. Dixie ii. 129, 551,589
v.
Cooke
Paee.
Vol.
Attorney General
201
ii.
i.
I!)
ii.
96
586
ii.
106
i.
i.
ii.
499.
King
Axe v. Clarke
Ay let v. Easy
v. Dodd
i.
233
ii.
180
319
ii. 59, 428
Ayliffv. Murray
i. 91,475.
ii. 131, 330
Aynsworth v. Pratchett
i. 274
Ayres v. Willis
ii. 43, 47
ii.
B.
Babbington
v.
Greenwood
i.
370
46
ii.
Buck
v.
Andrews
ii.
99, 101
NAMES OF CASES.
xl
Bad-well's Case
Bacon
Baden
457,
ii.
v.
Bacon
v.
Countess of Pembroke
i. 291
ii.
Badger, ex parte
Badrtck v. Stephens
Bagnal v. Bagnal
Baeot v. Ouditon
Bagwell v. Dry
Bagshaw
Spencer
Elkins
v.
i.
508
75
ii. 405
i. 472
ii. 86
ii. 287
357, 433
481, 482.
i.
372
341
ii. 246
ii. 533
i. 485
i. 495
ii. 585
i. 85
ii. 250
i. 310
ii. 220
i. 423
.
Hammond
/.
ii.
Baillie
Sibbald
Bainbridge, ex parte
-.
Dixon
Baio.es v.
Bainton v. Ward
Baker, ex parte
v.
Athil
Bird
Child
v.
Duinaresque
v.
v.
v.
Harris
v.
Hart
v.
Hall
v.
Holmes
i.
112.
Vol. Vug*.
Bang-ley, ex parte
Bank v. Farquis
Bank of England
v.
368
v.
v.
Payne
v.
Pritchard
v.
White
227, 206,
268, 207
ii.
232, 273
Baldwin
Bale
-
Ball
v.
v.
v.
v.
ii.
236
149
i.
436
i.
Balcli v. Wastall
.
322
i.
ii.
v.
Billiiigsley
v.
Johnson
v.
IVluck.nvn
ii.
ii.
Coleman
Newton
i.
i.
85
405
360
325
Balsh v. Hyam
Banbury's, ord,
ii.
Case
Banbury v.
Banbury Claim
Bancroft v. Warden
Baadier, ex parte
i.
ii. 113
v. Soane
Allen
i. 437. ii. 13
i. 128
v. Baker
v.
Bar-net v.
Saxby
Weston
Barney
Blake
v.
v.
i.
278
256
i.
100
ii.
Barnsley, ex parte
ii.
569, 575,
576
Powell i. 212, 237,
238, 261. ii. 206,321,435
Barret v. Beckford
ii. 34
v. Blagrave
i. 138
v.
Barton
ii.
153
227
ii.
405
i.
ii.
177
13
208
133
217,
i.
Lunn
218
301
ii.
ii.
ii.
v.
337
310
i. 406
ii. 404
ii. 272
v. Tristran
ii. 9, 17,64, 420
i. 253
Barrough v. Greenough
Barrow, ex parte
ii. 480
Bartholomew v. May
i. 477
Bartlett v. Hawker
i. 158
Balmaine v. Snore
Balmanno v. Lumley
Barnes
158
ii.
Mellish
81
ii.
536, 538
32
12
v. Morris i. 273
Banks, ex parte
ii. 465
v. Den sham
i. 50
v. Sutton
i. 360, 363
Barbone v. Trent
i.
04, 172
Barclay v. Russell
ii. 85,167
v. Wainwright ii. 37, 73
Barfit, exparte
ii. 526
Barring v. Nash
i.
199, 201,
202
Bark v. Harris
ii. 234
Barker v. Dacie
ii. 227
i. 161.
ii. 282
v Duinaresque
v Goodair
i. 112, 113
ii. 464, 487
v. Vansomar
i. 241
v. Wyld
ii. 275
Barnard v. Large
i. 394, 395
Barnardiston v. Fane
i. 37
366, 367,
ii.
ii.
"2*2
ii.
Butson
v.
ii.
v.
Bailey
Vol. Page.
4(H), 469
v. Gore
Banington v. Home
~
v. O'Brien
v.
v.
Barton
Coke
Barwell v. Parker
Barwis, ex parte
ii.
i.
ii.
i.
28
469
VUIJ'S OF CASES.
xh
Vol. Page.
Bsk
Dal way
v.
Baskerville
B ni >*.
v.
v.
Bassevi
Batch
Clapham
i.
Nos worthy
1.
303
409
ii.
4 19
ii.
213
Sena
v.
Bustard
v.
51, 289
i.
Buskerville
160
i.
Clarke
v.
Andrews
v.
ii.
Bate, ex parte
Hate
Bates
ii.
v.
Murray
v.
W'.llue
v.
Dandy
v.
Graves
i.
1 1
Beaalieu, Lord,
381
ii.
I.
258
i.
141
Montague
S9
i.
Berty
v.
Reed
v.
ii.
Bax, ex parte
Baxter's Case
Bawdes
v.
ii.
ii.
Am hurst
i.
Adams
ii.
v.
Bishop
De Walkeirs
ii.
v.
El kins
Buy ley
v.
v.
v.
420
389
ii.
i.
Corporation
57
299
246
13
224
494
of Leo-
417
ii. 89
v. Powell
i. 08
Baylisv. Attorney General
i. 319
Baynes v. Baynes
ii. 07
v. Dixon
Bavuhain v. Guv's Hospital i. 34
i. 11
Baynum v. Bay num.
i. 40, 248
Bax v. Wliitbread
i. 201
Baxter v. Knollys
)i. 373
v. Wilson
i. 405
Beale v. Beale
i. 69
Beamonl v. Fell
ii
Bean, expa.te
473
i- 320
Beard v. Nuthall
ii. 403
v. Earl Powia
i. 277
v. Travera
ii. 470
Beaseiey v. Beasley
BeatrifTv. Smith
211,200
minster
i.
34.
\QL.
I.
ii.
<i
Lord Cardigan
v.
Boultbee
Hutchinson
v.
v.
chinell
i.91
Thorpe
Arnold
v.
15i
v.
159
18
i.
i.
ii.
4S!)
i.
390
i.0 16
ii.
79
65,
354
303
i.
Wilman
v.
220
i.
Beck, ex parte
v. Weld)
Beckett v. Beckett
Beck ford v. Beckford
v. Tobin
v. ^ ade
139
ii.
ii.
i.
187
Newland
ii. 217
Beekman v. Le Grange
Bedford, Duke of, v. Cokei. 243
ii. 400
Beilby, exparte
i. 417
Belch v. Harvey
ii. 534
Belchier, exparte
Beckley
v.
Parsons
v.
119, 123,
ii.
198
Baugh
21
i.
ii.46
Beaumont
141,20(5, 207,
Heard
v.
383,384,387
Hat
-'5'
i.
261.
V.
236
04,
i.
i.
121
34
i.
l'a\ Icy
v.
547
ii.
Scales
v.
Bateman
Vol. Pa
Duke or,
Beaufort,
Bel four
v.
Weston
Bell, in matter of
ii.
Cundall
v.
Phyne
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
378
85
i. 120
202, 203
ii. 25
ii. 34
i.
Jones
ii.
Erwin
Uthwaite
Russell
i.
95*
310, 342
ii.
Belton, exparte
Bempde
ii.
Johnstone
Bencraft v. Rich
Benfield, exparte
v.
v.
Benger
v.
Bengough
Solomons
i.
ii.
Walker
ii.
i.
- v.
v.
Edwards
v.
Lee
v.
Vade
i.
9S
34, 35
27, 92
ii.
Ratchelor
Davis
v.
407
487, 501
ii.
Drew
v.
509
517
ii.30(>
ii.
Bennett, exparte
!<>;{
ii.
Bellassis v.
Bellew
10,
ii.
Read
Walker
Bellamy
41
i.
499.
i.
ats.
v.
33
572
i.
531
87
ii.
363, 376
i.428
411 ii 253,
i.
261
v.
ii.
Whitehead
Coll.v.
Carey
ii.
"I
298,115,
41S
Benson
v.
Baldwin
20
NAMES OF CASES.
xlii
Vol. Page-.
Vol. Pajre.
Benson
310
k 310
L 33
ii. 358
v. Bellasis
Benson
Gibson
Vernon
v.
v.
v.
Benyon
i.
Benyon
v.
ii.
73, 74
v.
Collins
i.
v.
Maddisou
ii.
400
13
Daugh
348
Rvder
ii. 329
Marquis of Donnegal
v.
v..
Bernal
v.
i.
ii.
Berrisford v. Mrlward
Berry
Ask ham
v.
v.
Usher
v.
Wade
185
257
i. 485
108, 110
i. 310
i.
ii.
Lord Falkland
i.
35,
262, 374
Bertie v.
L 202
ii. -04
Bateman
Bettesworth v. Dean and Chapter
of St. Paul's
i.
288,308
Best
Stamford
v.
Bethuen
v.
Bevan, exparte
ji. 403,
Bevant v. Pope
i.
ii. 5G8,
Beverley's Case
Bevershain v. Thringhold i.
Bias
303
502
135
i. 57
i. 480
Bias
v.
Biekhatn
v.
v.
'
Cross
v.
Bicknell
i.205
Cough,
Page
u 470
iL40
100
ii. 417
ii. 79
i. 432
182
i.
i. 99
Biddlev. Biddle
Biddulph
Bigghton
v.
Biddulph
ii.
Grubb
Bigglestou v. Grubb
v.
Bignol
v.
Bill v.
Kynaston
Bignol
v. Price
Billinghurst, exparte
Billingslev
Billon
v.
Crickett
v.
Hyde
Bindon, Lord,
ii.5M
i.
179
Walker
v.
4<>5
i.
273
130
207
Bird v. Harrison
ii. 302
v. Lefevre
ii. 81,574
v. Hardwieke
i. 173
Biscoe v. Perkins
345, 304, 300
Bishop v. Church
i. 1, 428.
Birch
Birchill,
i.
ii.
v.
v.
Bearfoot
Coleman
Birch v. Blagrave
v.
Webster
i.
v.
Willis
ii.
83
317
79. ii. 330
i. 02
Ellames
i.
ii.
i.
i.
i.
431
298
242
420
338
442
i.468
65
240
i. 409
i. 13
ii. 237
ii. 10
i. 126
v. Nash
i. 331, 333
Blackwood, ats.
176
Blacoe v. Wilkinson
110
Blades v. Blades
260
Blagden v. Bradbear
208
Blake v. Blake
305
v. Buubury
ii. 40, 44
East IndiaCompany i. 33
v. Lei;h
i. 2G7
Blakeway v.^Strafford
i. 482,
B lam ire
v.
i.
i.
Gildart
Blewit's cae
Bligh
i.
13
134
ii.
476
ii.
Blauchard v. Hill
Bland, ex parte
Blanford v. Tliackerell
i. 493.
Blatch v. Wilder
ii.
ii.
ii.
v.
ii.
Lord Darnlev
v.
ii.
51
354
589
296
501.
355, 303
i.
v.
Morrettik 93,94,399,
v.
Blower
380
Burrow
Doughty
Meyrick
v.
ii.
v,
331,512, 514,515
v.
Bissell v. Axtell
486, 5J3
Earl of Suffolk
v.
Binstead
i.
i.
ii.
Bowdeu
v. Domnutt i.
Bingham v. Bingham
Binford
Holt
ex parte
v.
ii.423
ii.
397
ii.
435
40O
Bluck v. Fawcett
Bine v. Marshall
Blundell v. Buttargh
Blunden v. Barker
372
129
i. 338
i. 370
ii.
ii.
NAMES OF CASES.
xliii
Vol. Pag.
Itlunt v. Clitherow
Blyth
v.
Bodicoate
ii.444
Tastet
ii. 405
Boeve v. Shipwith
:*">
Bold v. Corbett
i.
ii.
Bolger v, Maekell
12,429
Bolton School, ex parte
ii. 563
Duke of, v. Williams
i.
486. ii. 441
Bonbonus, ex parte ii. 462, 464
Bond& Hill, ex parte ii. 465,466
v. Hopkins i. Pref. vii. 421
v. Kent
ii. 107
v. Duke of Newcastle ii. 158
i. 390, 391
v. Simmons
,
Bonham
v.
Newcombe
41.
i.
ii.
10
i. 427
Bonithonv. Hack more
Bonner v. Bonner i. 4S0, 4S7, 502
Bonney v. Ridgard
302
i.
Booth v. Booth
ii. 12, IS
s
352
v. Dick
ii.
v. Rich
ii. 354
Boraine's Case
i.
17
Good ere
Borretv.
i.
488
Bosanquet v. Dashwood
i. 242
Bostock v. Blakeney ii. 120, 127
384
Bosville v. Brander
i.
Boswell v. Corant
i. 493
Bosworth School, ex parte ii. 589
i.
361.
Botteler v. Allingham
ii.
ii.
Botts v. Verelest
ii
Boughton
v.
Boughtoo
i.
517
202
223.
ii.
47
Boulbee
v.
Stubbs
v. Alleyne
i.
191
205
ii. 304
Bourke v. Bothwell
v. Bridgman
i. 82
v. Lord Macdonald ii. 158
v. llicketts ii. 00, 08,70
Bourdillon
ii.
Bourne, ex parte
v.
Bovey
v.
Dodson
Smith
l>oweii, e\ parte
Bower v. Carter
Bowers v. Cator
v.
Litile.\ood
i.
ii.
4ol
495,496
ii.
101
v.
235.
i.
Bowles
v.
Hunter
Rogers
Bowman
Bowyer
v.
v.
ii.
Stewart
v.
170
Boycott v. Cotton
90, 92
180, 200,
i.
Lygon
M c Evoy
259
330
ii.
207,
405. ii. 21
ii.273
ii.
i.
Boyd
v.
Wills
Boyle
v.
Bishop of Peterborough
i. 3 4, 247, 2 .9
Lysaght
i. 34
v.
Boyntou
i.
4."0
ii.
101
Pack hurst
v.
Bow hee
v. Grills
Bowlter
v.
Hunter
ii.
85
i.
iS-_:
Bracken v. Bent ley
Brace v. Duchess of Marlborough
i.
Bradish
Gee
v.
v.
v.
421, 434
i.
ii.
Bradley
248, 138
i.
59
ii.
31
Bradley
Prixoto
ii.
!'J
v. Out ram
ii. 146
Bradwinv. Harper
Bramley v. Alt
i. 257
Brandlyn v. Order. 159. ii.248,
258
Brasbridge v.WopdrofJe ii. !'(>,'>;:
Brad.->haw
Brasskigton
v. Brassington-ii.
Bray v.
Braybrooke
v.
Brecton
Da; kin
v.
Inskip
i.
v.
30
i.
Brend
Brereton v. Game!
Brend
345, 364.
ii. 164
i.
:>i\>
ii.
410
255
ii.
Brett
v.
Bridgev. Abbott
Bridges v. Hitchcox
v. Mitchell
v.
473
245
Bridgman
i.
302
Bridgwater,
i.
519
v.
v.
e 2
ii.
i.
Duke
79
19
474, 482
242
Edwards
. 25
ii.
Dove
Green
i.
of, v,
20
309
i.
Wood
i.
ii.
17
ii.
Bowlcer
192
ii.
Strathmore
v.
231, 2-32
Botterill, ex parte
Vol.
Bowersbank v. Collassnu
Bowes, ex parte ii. 47!,
i.
v. St. era
De
v.
Mostyn
198, 58'i
ii. 283
300,304,
."340. ii. 128
i. 200
Elmhirst
v.
Boardman
Boehm
ii.
i.
NAMES OF
xliv
CASES'.
Vol. Fag*.
Vol. ?a?p.
Eynon
v. Woodward
Bright
v.
i.
.
i.
206
4(8
Briscoe v. Cartwright
i. 58
Bristol, Earl of, v. Hungerford
i.
Bromley
v.
Smith
ii.
ats.
'ii.
Goodere
v.
ii.
v. Jeffereys
Holland
v.
102
149
459, 499,
540, 548
i.337
23, 184,
186. ii. 423
i.
ii. 77
Bromsdonv. Winter
i. 97, 99
Brooke v. Galley
v. Lord Hertford
j Lord,
i. 200. ii. 353
ii. 225
v. Hewitt
ii. 377
Brookes v. Reynolds
ii. 34
Broughton v. Errington
ii. 93, 95
Brown v. Allen
Browne, ex parte ii. 457, 400,
408, 473, 502
i. 2S, 427
v. Barkham
i. 00
v. Browne
ii. 528
v. Bullen
ii. 295
v. Byne
v. Carter
i. 246
'
'
v.
Chapman
v.
Clarke
v.
Dawson
v.
He
v.
Harris
v,
Heathcote
v.
Lee
v.
Litton
v.
O'Dea
v.
v.
i.
Higden
v.
Parry
Pring
i.
ii.
145
ii.
Laet
Elton
Higgs
401
385
30
451
385
i.
v.
v.
ii.
i.
i.
434, 487,
490, 497
46. ii.81,371,
ii.
ii.
436
406
402
117, 123
241
ii. 47
i. 62
i.
Quilter
Raindall
v.
v.
i.
v.
Rhabau
v.
Selwyn
Williamson
'
422
i. 249, 250
Bristowe v. Ward
i. 208
Broderick v. Broderick
Broderip v. Phillips
ii. 228
ii. 574
Brodie v. Barry
i. 300
v. St. Paul
i. 401
Brome v. Berkley
v Monk
i. 283. ii. 41
ii. 580
Bromfield, ex parte
ii. 419
v. Chichester
Bromhead
Browne
v.
Browneil
v.
31,33
i. 292
i. 346
i. 471
ii. 252
Browuell
19
i.
Browning v. Barton
Brownsword v. Edwards
i.
393
i. 373.
228, 239, 254
Brudenel v. Boughton i. 482, 48(3
Brudenel v. Elwes i. 49, 50, 53
ii.
Bruen
Bruen
v.
Brummell
v.
ii.
Prothero
i.
23
475
v. M'Pherson
ii. 107
Brunker, ex parte
ii. 183
Brnyere v. Pemberton ii. 121,441
Bryant, ex parte ii. 455,458,468,
503, 518
Spike
v.
Brydges
i.
Landen
v. Buchannan
Draper
v.
i.
Buchannan
i.
Buck
i.
v.
v. Fawcett
Buckeridge v. I u grain
Buckinghamshire, Earl
Drury
Buckhouse v. Crosby
Bucklandv. Hajl
Buckle v. A ties
v.
05
475
483
332
208
439
486
ii.
v. Phillips
ii.
i.
of,
V.
i.369
i.
i.
i.
323
333
408
216,287,326
Williams
i. 493
Mitchell
i.
Buckley v.
Buckmaster v. Harropi. 291,302
Bucks, Duchess of, v. Sheffield
ii.357
ii. 90
BufTar v. Bred ford
Bufford v. Bradford
ii. 87
ii. 180
Bulley v. Ovey
Bullock, ex parte ii. 242,409,474
i. 495
v. Fladgate
v.
v.
v.
Menzies
Richardson
Sadliere
v.
Burdett
v.
Burdou
v.
v.
Burden
Rockley
Dean
Kennedy
ii.
349
i.
174
ii.
Case
Bulstrode v. Bradley
v. Litchmere
's
Burden
ii.
391
137
259
471
i.
ii.
390
363
375, 386
i. 418
91. ii.
ii. 105,
i.
i.
415,429, 551,566
\U
NWMES OF CASES.
Vol
304.
i.
Burgh v. Francis
Bink v. Brov
Burke v. Vicars
11
ii.
242,243
ii. 159
ii.
517
L 361, 362
i.
v.
Griffin
Burueli v. Martin
Burnett v. Burnett
v. Kinnaston
ii.2*l
i.383
357
in 94
n. 459
ii.
Burridge v. Bradyl
Burrow 's case
Lock
v.
v.
ii.
559
45
475
200
ii.
109
ii.
i.
Know I ton
Afalvon
v.
v.
Matton
v.
Pierpont
i.
i.
501, 506
Bush v. Western
Bushnan v. Pell
Bnsshell
Butcher
v.
Bnsshell
Cooke
v.
Duncombe
i.
ii.
ii.
251
i.
262
5 13
ii,
i.
v.
il>.
478
ii.
Campbell, exparte
ii. 505
v. Campbell
ii. N3
v. French i. 07, ii. 270
v. Leach
i. 48, 50
Radnor ii. 73
v. Earl
Campion, exparte
i. 427
v. Cotton
i. 219
v. Walker
i. 94
Cann v. Cann i. 152, 209, 324,
431
Cannell v. Buckle i. 282, 283,
288
Canning
Cad man
v.
Cagev
Cahill
Homer
Darby
Russi
v.
ii.
i.
'>21
121,421, 493
II
Shepherd
v.
Hickes
v.
ii.
500, 501
i.
i:.
v.
27
20
411
i.
Harris
i.
296
51
47,71,
72
i.
ii.
Goodinge
v.
Carleton
4 Li
i.
Cardwell v. Mackrill
Carey v. Askew i. 181,
ii.
Brightwell
90
85,
ii.326
i.
287
304
Carlisle,
of,
v.
Lord
Berkley
ii. 194
Earl of, v. Globe ii. 409
Corporation of v. Wilson
i. 69
Carlos v. Brooke
ii. 321
Carnan v. Bowles i. 126, ii.2H(>
Menzies
Smith
Countess
v.
ii.
v.
Carnatic,
Nabob
Carr
v.
v.
v.
ii.
of, v.
Company
ii.
East India
220, 240
Carr
Eastabrooke i.391,
Ellison
i.
35,
ii.
46
ii.
38
57,318
37 2
Carrington v. Holly
ii. 298
Cairou, Heir of, v. Bark
i. 425
Carruthers v. Carruthcrs i. 282,
283, 369
Carte v. Ball
ii.
149
v
Caft're\ v.
33
44*2
ii.
71
322
ties,
i.
('ami. art
(upper
307
Butterworth v. Bailey ii. 288,333
v. Robinson
i. 126
Bntriche v. Broadliurst
ii.
46
Buxton v. Lister
ii. 427
Byne v. Potter
i. ISO
B}
199,201
307, ii.81
i.
i.
iMoreton
257
401,402,
Butter6eld
Vivian
exparte
v.
ii.
i.
Butt, exparte
>
Cam part
Calmady
Rous
v.
Cant, exparte
Capel v. Gi idler
404
v.
Camden v.
i.
Every
Freeman
Butterfield
Cambridge
i.
S'tapeley
v.
v.
v.
140
Butler, es parte
ii.
v. Buileri. 273,478.
v.
Mince
v.
321,
ii.
322,323
ii. 517, 518
ii. 393
Callow, exparte
Calma.lv
>17
ii.
342,361
i.
Roehefort
386
432
303
403, 494
Easts
v.
i.
248,240,251
!s
Churchill ii. 509, 5 >
v.
v.
Callaghan
i.
v.IJutcherji.
v.
337
i.42
ii.
Burt v. Barlow
Burton, ex parte
v/Hastinga
4-27
ii.
la inereau
v.
275
i.
Theobald
v.
230
i. 42
Vol.
Calcot, exparte
Calcraft v. Roebuck
v.
Burn v.
Burnaby
117
i.
Wheate
v.
Uurlton
P.iro.
Lamb
Burgensv.
'Lay lor
i .
NAMES OF CASES.
xlvl
Carte
Carter, ex parte
v.
Crawley
De Bruuc
v.
-21
ii.
v.
Chandos, Duchess
507
158
i.
ii.
Paschall
383,
i.
v.
Cooper
v.
Chapman
v.
I'uv
1
i.
i.
Bond
Browne
172, 17(5
199, 212
v.
Gibson
57
v.
Koops
Landsdown
Abbott
v.
ii.
i.440
v.
Bertie
v.
Coodinge
471
i.
428
i. 303
192, 413
Stafford
Casborne v. lnglis
v.
ii.
v. Scarfe
i.
Cassleton, Lord, v. Fansliaw
Cass v. Ruddle
Caswell, ex parte
Cathcartv. Lewis
itor, ex parte
Cut ton, ex parte
( ator
v. Earl
of
ii.
330
507
i.
ii.
510
ii.
ii.583
Pembroke
ii.
105, 107
Cave
v.
v.
Pulteney
ii.
Hoiibrd
Challnor v. Murball
v.
Chambers
v.
v.
ii. 378
i. 51
Chambers
Goldwin i. 82, 275,
435, 430,
v.
ii.
ii.
v.
43
ii.
21
i.280
Cave
11,119, 122
Thomson
ii.
233
i. 18
Chamberlaine, ex parte'
Chamberlaine
v.
i.
v.
v.
Champ
Knapp
Mood
v.
Champion,
-,
Chanrey
Dummer
e>:
v.
v.
v.
ii.
i.
ii.
parte
Wiuham
ii.
i.
Graydon
Tahourdin
i.
115,
ii.
174
189
ii.
i.
ii.
i.
ii.
i.
v.
28
155, 171,
232
404
341
497
387
Talbot
'.'.1,22,210
i.
497
57,58
i. 75
ii. 242
ii. 238
ii. 105
Turner
Tanner
Chappeaurouge v. Carteaux ii.
184
v.
Charitable Corporation
Sutton,
v.
ii.
Charles, ex parte
Andrews
Charman
Box
i.
v.
Chase v.
Chassaing
v.
ii.
i.
Parsonage
Chave v. Farrant
Chaver v. Spurling
Chaworth v. Beech ii.
v. Hooper
Chedworth, Lord, v.
113
480, 544
493, 499
ii.
v.
Chasman
358
511, 514
280
38
ii. 25
9, 11,409
ii. 10
Edwards
i. 128
i.
378
ii. 18
i.
ii.
Chesslyn v. Smith
Chester v. Painter
Chesterfield v. Jansen i. Pref.
xxii. 99, 101, 208, 226
Cheval v. Nicholls i. 2G0, ii. 257
Chicote v. Lequesne
ii. 555
Child v. Lord Abingdon ii. 383
ii. 115, 249
v. Gibson
Chitty v. Chitty
i. 309
v.
i. 498,
Parker
348
548
234, ii.252
ii.
Chandler, ex parte
v. Beard
v. Gardiner
Chandless v. Price
Chandos, Duke of,
253
i.
53, 57
45, 55, 56,
ii.
v.
148, 153
ii.
'
C ivan, Lady,
v.
488
i.440
v. Blissett
v.
i.
Hateley
Pulteney
v.
v.
i.
v.
i.
Green
180
ii.
Ansell
172
173
Ellison
-v.
v.
585
ii.
Chaplin
387, 434
Cartwright
ex parte
of,
425, 55S
i.
v.
Carteret, Lord,
343
1.
Blctsoe
v.
Vol. Page.
PA^e.
Vol.
Carte
111,152
ii.
Sel wyn
Cholmondeley,
Oxford
ii.
Lord,
v.
205
Earl of
152
514
v. Attorney General i. 257
Chumley, ex parte ii. 583, 585
Church v. Browne
i. 339, 340
Churchill v. lady Hobsonii. 123
Chute v. Lady Dacre
ii. 287
Cicil v. Plaistow
i. 22G
i.
Christie, ex parte
ii.
Civil v.
Kich
i.
509, 511
NAMES
<>K
CASKS.
xlvii
Vol. Page.
Burk
White
Clanrichard
Clapham
Clare
v.
ii.
Clare
v.
ii.
v. Wordell
Clarendon v. Hornby
Claridge v. lloare
Clarke, ex parte
.
ii.
ii.
254
61, 466,
;">N3
v.
Lord Abingdon
v.
Byne
v.
Capron
ii.
Clerk
v. Grant
v. Guise
ii.
v.
i.
v.
v.
Clarkson
ii.
i.
24, 115
325
442
i.
ii.
Seymour
i.
Clowe v. Ballard
Clowes v. Higginson
Bishop
Clovne,
v.
Cold
Cole
Corbett
Colebrook
Coleman
of,
v.
Young
ii.
ii..
Ravie
Richards
Cockel
v.
Cocking
v.
Cockraine
i.
i.
ii.
Blantire
146,
155
G89, ii. 25
Pratt
v.
D nke
02
427
i.
ii.
9, 11
\lbans
ii.
of St.
42<i
420,425,480
Brangwin
ii. 90
i.
Colesworth v.
v. Jones
i.
434
v. Trecothick i. 93, 98, 213,
299, 322, ii. 339
Collet
v.
Collet
i.
v.
De
i.
v.
Golls
Wollaston
i.
v.
Collins
i.
v.
Goodhall
v.
Cough
Collins
ii.
ii.
v. Griffith
v.
Plumb
Pluminer
v.
v.
Collis v.
v.
Col man
Wakeman
i.
Blackburne
v.
Sarrell
v.Seymour
Colson
Colt v. Woolaston
Colwall v. Shadwell
Colygame, ex parte
Combe, ex parte
I
v.
110, 111
ii.
i,
327,
Co son
154,155
i. 133
i. 294
i.
Swayne
318
424
330
294
244
248
191,
i.
ii.
111,232
Thompson
Phips
ii,
Coles
ii
581
183
227
239
i.497
217
Jones
i.
101
1.321,322
Cock
v.
i.
Winch
41
97, 101
i.
i.
Clutterfouck v.
Cockayne, ex parte
v.
i.
i.
Coleman
v.
v.
400
282, 283
89,90,91,
92, 312
Smith
L 493
Cockburne
v.
v.
v.
ii. 310,310,317
Low ten
i.
185,
ii. 430
v.
i.
Clough
ii.338
II
i.
i.
480
ii.
v. Farewell
141, ii. 308
Colchester v. Colchester
ii. 371
.Mayor &c. of, v.
Warden
Gresham
v.
v.
V.
115
334
300
213
i.
ii.
Cuker
dough
109
v,
v.
Claverinj
v. Hill
-<- v.
i.
Woden
v.
v.
v.
v.
(odd
i.484.
Clavering's Case
lavton
432
ii.38,66,93, 04
Hanway
v.
2*i.
i.
Gibbons
Gibson
Robins
Thorpe
Turton
Wilson
v.
ii.
Cohen v. Cunningham
Coke v. Fountain
491
i.
170
,.
325
ii. 368
ii. 28
ii. 334
Sewell
v.
Worthington
v.
t.
Coekshott, ex parte
ii.
v. Montgomery
v. Pinker
v. Perium
v. Seton
Cocks
Coffin
499
592
322
40,
ii.
Jennings
v.
v. Bl...
v. Parker
ii. 190
Cooper ii. 277,278, 379
Coglar v. Coglar
ii. 183
490,
i.
Cockroft
CodringtoD
-J00
i.
401
Vol. Pa
237
ii. 285
i. 307
401,403
v.
274
227
185, 320,
219, 421
i. 248, ii. 71
ii.
i.
i.
i.
i.
i,
440
200
318
385
429
NAMES OF
xlviii
CASE!?.
Vol. P:.pe
i. 430,527
Coining, ex parte
i. 308
Compton v. Collinson
.
v.
Oxendon ii.
590
ii.
80
ord, v.
Sale
Congreve v. Congreve
Coinnusbv, LordjV. Sir
ii.
10
Jos. Jekyll
ii. 227
ii. 340
Conollyy. Lord Howe
257
i.
v. Parsons
Constantine v. Constantine i. 4 12,
4?o
i. 516
Constablev, Constable
C mere v. Lord Abergavenuy
i. 137
i. 100
Cooke's Case
Cook, ex parte ii, 462, 404, 4(i5,
Arnham
v.
<
505, 5(10
55, 57, 58, 59
v.
Broom head
v.
V\h\ worth
319
238, 321
ii.
i.
Corbyn
French
v.
ii.
Vol. Pag*.
19, 50, 52,
53,
Cordell v. Modeu
Conlvseil v Mackarill
Corneforth v. Geer
Cornish v. Mew
Corser, ex parte
Cornwallis's, Lord, Case
Cory
Cory
v.
Cotterell
i.
Hampson
v.
i.
it.
104
ii.
05
505
ii. 502
i. 495
239, 245
35;*, 496
i.
i.
Purchase
v.
20?,
i.
439
294
ii. US
ii. 302
i. 236
ii.
Cotter v. Layer
Cottiugton v, Fletcher
Cotton
Harvey
King
v.
v.
Lutterell
Stratton
v.
Couch
i.
v.
45,
ii.
430
48
ii.
i. 121
v. Mapplesden
Courtney, Lord, v. Godschall i. 70
Courtown, Lord, v. Ward i. 120
Cousins v. Smith ii. 145, 178, 233
ii. 311
Coutsv, Pickering
Coventry, Lord, v. Burslem i. 202
--v. Coventry i. 47,312,
Conrthope
320
Corbettv. Corbett
>
's
v.
~-
v.
Davenant
Tottenham
i.294
Lord, Case
Ladv, v. Lord Coventry
Lord,
's,
i.
v.
441
v.
Clarke
v.
Seott
i.
i.
ii.
392, 395,
390
Cowstad v. Coley
Cowtanv. Williams
ii.
144
140, 148
Cox's Case
i. 13, 490. ii. 377
v. Bassett i. 4SG, 487. ii. 63
i.
Bateman
v.
ii.
Belitha
v. Col ley
v.
v.
Higford
303
v.
Quantock
i.
201
208, 209
138, 140
514. ii. 23, 46
Cowsladev. Cornish
i.
i.
31*2
Lady Coventry
i. 318
Case
58
80
Coysgarne
Crabtree
v.
v.
Jones
Bramble
i.
114
510
i.
159
i. 37
ii. 82
ii. 214
290, 294
i.
xhx
NAMES OF CASES.
Vol. Pajre.
i.321
Craig
v.
liohon
217
307
229
ii.
ii.
Cranbornv. Dalraahoy
Crane v. Drake
i.
Cranmer, ex parte ii. 508, 571,
573,575
Cranmer's Case
Craiibtown,
Lord,
ii.
i.
237,
ii.
Wright
ii.
Crawle
awley v. Clarke
ii.
Craven
Crawle
v.
v.
Crawshaw
v.
Collins
37
Johnston
v.
i.
i.
302
280
exparte
ii.
462,476
157
433
i. 55. ii. 71, 72
ii. 517
Cripps v. Tee
i. 42
Crisp, exparte
ii. 4G2, 474, 507
Crisp v. Perrit
ii. 402
Crockat v. Croekat
ii. 75, 77
i.
Crockford v. Alexander
121
Croft v. Linsey and another i. 40
i.
V.Powell
413
v. Pyke
i. 77, 471, ii. 342
Crommelin v, Crommelin ii, 29
Croinpe v. Barrow
i. 49,50
Cromptou v. S ile
ii, 30
Crooke v. De Vaudes
ii. 83, 85
Crosby v. Murray
ii. 43
i. 207
v. Wadsworth
Cross v. Andrews
ii. 592
Crossing v. Scudamore
i. 44
Crosly v. Carrington
ii. 555
Crouch v. Martin
i. 437
Crowder v. Clowes
ii. 74
Crowe v. Ballard
i, 213
Cressett v. Milton
Creswell v. Byron
Crickett v. Dolby
Crinsoz, exparte
ii.
Barley
VtOrby Hunter
205, 290
i.
Cull v. Showell
10
ii.
Cullen v. J)uke of Queensburj
ii.
145
179
545
ii.
518
ii.
Culley v. Hickling
Cutne, exparte
Cundall, exparte
Cunningham
Currie
Curtis
ii.
v.
Cunuingham ii.
373,440
v.
Moody
Pj
v. Curtis
v.
'
317
428
i.
95,
ii.
187, 10S,
i.
351
ii.
Hatton
v.
v.Perry
v. Price
v.
Curry
Cusac
50
ii.
i.
Smallbridge
ii.
v. Pile
409
73
51
ii.
Cusac
Cutlet v. Smith
Cutt's, Sir John, Case
Cutter v. Power
y.
i.
ii.
17(>
57G
i. 33
ii.
i.
Croyston v. B;ines
i. '305
Cruise v. Bishop of London
v.
1:1
i.
flutter
v.
D.
ii.
Cruse
Lye
49-2
102
Cray v. Mansfield
i. 95,
ii. 82
-v.Willis
ii. 589
Creagh, exparte
v. Wilson
ii. 25
ii. 221
Creswick v. Creswick
Creuze v. Hunter i. 489, ii. 378,
396
v. Lowth
i. 489, ii. 441
Cr..'w,
Cud
v.
14
165
77, 78,
ii.
Vo
Crutwell
ii.
i.
Da
Costa
Dagley
v.
Dalbiac
Dale
v.
Da Costa
Crump
v.
v.
Dalbiac
224, 388
290, 202
L77, b78.
ii.
ii.
i.
472
43
Smithwicke
i.
Daley, exparte
i. 17
Daley v. Desbouverie
ii. 24
Dalston v. Coatsworth
i. 258
ii. 520
Dalton, exparte
ii. 319
v. Carr
Daniels v. Davison i. 300,363,
ii. 10 J, 255
v. Ship with
i. 419
Dann v. Spurrier
i. 216
ii. 00
exparte
i.
Dauvers \. Manning
7
i. 423, ii. 127
Darcey v. Hall
.
<
Darkin v. Marye
Darlpy v. Darley
Darling v. Stamford
Darlington, Earl
of,
i.
Darnel
v.
ii. 363
273,376
ii. 315
i.
v.
48,
Pulteney
43, 34?
ii.
Rayney
1!)2
Darrell v. Molesworth
Darwent v, VValtou
110
203
Darwin v, Clarke
Daughbigny v. Davallon
ii.
27:!
ii.
ii.
ii.
20
12
299
ii,243
NAMES OF CASES
Vol. Va^e.
Vo'. Pago.
Darston
Earl of Oxford
v.
i.
ii.
Darwent
ii.
Walton
Lord Bulkley
v.
Dashwood
v.
Blythway
Peyton i.
v.
Davenhill
v.
v.
ii.
Foley
v.
Russell
v.
i.
Edward*
v.
Gardiner
Jones
Lee
St rat h more
v.
v.
Trotter
v.
v.
Dawson
i.
183,
ii.
185
v. Killett
v.
Day
v.
v.
Parratt
Merry
. 14
ii.
j.
Newman
I.
421
117
330
4
Deacon v. Smith i. 312,313,481
Deaue v. Test i. 443,445, ii. 10,16
D*an of Dublin v. Dowgate i. 10
ii. 87
D*an v. Dal ton
i. 227, ii. 430
DeWenham v. Ox
ii. 80
Debese v. Mann
De Carriere v. De Calonne ii.182,
183
ii. 51,57
Decosta v. De Pas
i. 235
Decosta v. S'candrett
ii. 540
they, exparte
ii. 2
Decks v. Strutt
ii. 511
Decze, exparte
ii. 500
Degge, Simon, exparte
i. 494, ii. 124
Deggv.Degg
ii. 288
Dc-'ggs v. Colebrook
v.
Tri
"
"
v.
"
87
211
122
429
i. 475
ii. 15
i.
ii.
Dennison, exparte
IWkliu'jrton
i. 81
Denton v. Skellard
i. 350
Denton v. Stewart.
Derby, Earl of, v. Duke of Athoil
i.
Deschamps
82,
ii.
ii.
Dench v. Bamptoa
Denn v. Russell
520, 521
v.
De Mazar v. Pybus
De Minckuitz v. Udney
ii.
27, 31
ii.
i.
i.
i.
ii.
De Manneville
v.
Denvent
Davison
146
295
ii. 159
Deiancy v. Wallis
ii. 423
Deli Hi n v- Gale
i. 08
Delmare v.RobeHo
De Manneville v. Crompton
i. 209, ii. 124
De Golls v. Ward
De Graves v. Lane
312
ii. 170
ii. 258
474, 402
West
v.
ii.
i.
Topp
v.
ii.
421
ii. 90, 201
ii. 49
i. 483, 501
Davis
v.
89
39
208
12S
82,
ii.
v.
421
Pref.
ii.
1) ewey
Davidson
440
i.
301
518, 519,
Davers
v.
ii.
wit
ii.
94
Fletcher
Lord Bulkeley ii. 30
v.
Davers
468
341
142
v.
101, 171,
White
Desanthuns, exparte
Desbody
v.
Boyville
Descartet
v.
Dennett
v.
i.
Vanneck
ii.
of,
dish
Dick
v.
Milligan
471
2!)
ii.
32
492
403
ii.
157
27,
493
ii. 39
17, 18
i. 432
i.
Devism v. Millo
Devon v. Walls
Dewduey, exparte
ii.
i.
Deth'uk v. Carravan
Devese v. Pountet
Duke
240
144
ii.
Detastet, exparte
De Til Ion v. Sidney
Devonshire,
ii.
ii.
ii.
v.
Caven-
i.49
479, 503,
ii.
510
550
ii. 185
v. Swinton
i. 229
Dickinson v. Lockyer
Dickes v. Lambert ii. 85, 88, 00
i. 428
Digby v. Craggs
i. 411
Dighton v. Green vil
588
250
ii. 130
i. 114,125
i. 389
Diramock v. Atkinson
i. 70
Dinwiddie v. Bailey
ii. 485
Dixon, exparte
ii. 340
v. Dixon
v. Parker
ii. 297, 310
i. 442
Dobbins v. Bowman
ii. 251
Doble v. Cridland
ii. 487
D'Obree, exparte
ib.
Dobsoa v. Leadbeater
Dikes, exparte
Dillon v. Alvarez
v. Francis
Ditty v. Doig
ii.
ii.
NAMES OF
(ASKS.
Horner
v.
Dodsley
v.
442
Draper
113, 126,
Drewe
'*54,
ii.
Kinuersley
i.
287
i. 177, ii. 400
Dodson v. .ludd
ii. 2
Doc v. Guy
Doe Oil dein. of Bristow, v. Pegg
i. 412
of Dacosta v. Wharton
Doe
Borlan
v.
Corp
v. Hanson
Drew v. Power
v. Vernon
v.
Drinkwater
Drohan
Druce
v.
185
i.
48
Simpson
Wilier
i.
on dim. White
v.
i.357
Doiley v. Sparrat
Doleraine v. Browne
367
i.
79 80,
i.
206
Dolderv.Bank ofEnglaud ii. 290
v. Lord Huntingfield ii.
'227, 200, 290
i. 319
Dolman, exparte
i. 470
v. Weston
ii.211
Donev. Peacocke
.
Donlevy, exparte
Donne's Case
Donne
Lewis
v.
ii.
Denison
i.
474,
v.
78
573
549
ii.
ii.
i. (>7
Door v. Geary
55
Doran v. Ross
v. Simpson i. 229, ii. 153
Dormer 's Case ii. 569, 581, 585
Dormer v. Fortescue i. 72, 73,
74, 102, 197,198,408, ii. 225,
227, 230, 281, 349, 405
i.
Dornibid
Dornford
v.
i.
ii.
Doughty
Douglas
Dove
v.
ues
v.
v.
Bull
Clay
10S
377
ii.
ii.
Dove
v.
491,
115
ii.301
Company
Last India
ii.
Dun
exp:irte
v.
i.
85
90,
4S
Ib5
ii.
Duteus
v.
i.
221, 298,
ii.
Dungev
Angove
v.
Dunn v. Allen
Dunne v. barrel
Dunny
v. hi
more
i.
414
142, 143,
144, 145
397
347
412
ii.
ii.
ii.
Duplessis, exparte
i.
19
ii. 228
Durant v. Redman
Durbaue v. Knight ii. 390, 421
ii. 282
Durnfordv. Lane
Durour v. 3Iotteux
ii. SI
Dins ley, Lord, v. Fitzhardlo5, 158
inge
i.
i. 134
Durston v. Sandys
Duttou v. Morrison
112,431.
ii. 4C4
Dwyer
Dyer
Lade
ii.
17
i.
v.
Dundass
Draper's Case
Draper's Companj
255,
Davis
i.
Cotes
v.
i.
230
310, '370
ii. 34, 43
i. 352, 433
Kent
ii. 150
Dnncoinbe v. Hansley
223
ii.
314
75, 77
i.
i.
v. Drury
v.Hooke
Dnnch
100
Downshire, Marquis of, v. Lady
ii. 181
Saundys
i. 118,
Dowset \. Sweet
i. GS
l)<>\ ley v. Powis
i. 3C2
Drake v. Robinson
i. 56, 57
Drakeford v. Wilks
ii. 32
v.Thomas
ii.
283,309
i. 227
v. Molius
i. 120
ii. 489
v. Mann
Duckworth, exparte
u. 474
i. 4U8
Dudley v. Dudlev
i. 186, ii. 430
Duffv. Atkirisou
ii. 494, 511
Dumas, exparte
Duminer v. Corporation of Chipii. 129, 147
penham
Drurv
i.
Lord, Case
Donovan, exparte
-'s,
343
82, 211
n.
:J->1
ii.
Stewart
342, 343
i.
l.
Drohan
v.
v.
530, 531
ii.185
Dow
i.
Falconer
v.
211
i.
ib.
Routledge
v.
J'. .'.'.
Vol.
Vol. Patre.
Docker
Lvsaght
Lord Craven
v.
v.
Dyer
v.
v.
llargrave
V.
Timewell
Dyke
Dyose
v.
v,
Sylvester
ii.
81
413
ii. 99
310, 342
ii. 430
i. 24S
i.
Dyose
ii.
E.
Eacl es v England
95
ii. 20
Lingood
ii. 337, 338
ii. 451
Eagleton v. Kingston
Ealesr. Englaud
304
v.
NAMES OF
lil
CASES.
Tol. Page.
Vo!. Pnye.
Eames
Hancock
v.
Ellibank, Lord,
23
i. 310
443. ii. 45
ii.
Earlom v. Saunders
East v. Cooke
i.
Ka-t India Company v. Bodam
i. 22,23.
ii.37l
Campbell
v.
v.
Clavell
v.
Donald
v.
Evans
v.
Henchman
v.
Neave
i.
i.
64.
Elliot v.
339
60.
Saudys
v. Vincent
Ryal
Thoruberry
v.
East
v.
v.
Eastabrooke
v.
Eastwood
Vinke
Scott
Easthamv. Liddell
v.
i.
ii.
i.
280
ii.
i.
39.
ii.
30,
37
30,31
ii. 99
Echiift'v. Baldwin i. 294, ii. 258
Eden's Moreton Case
ii, 125
v. Foster
ii. 00
-, Sir John, v. Earl of Bute
ii. 374
Edgell v. Haywood
i. 241
Edmonds v. Bovey
i. 421
v. Townshend
i. 389
Edmund son v. Hartley
ii. 252
Edwards, ex parte
i. 204.
Eaton
Lyon
Ebrand v. Dancer
r.
i.
471,479,514
ii. 489
Carrol
ii. 410
Freeman
i, 34, 507,
ii.
v.
- v.
v.
v.
Moore
ii.
98
Countess of Warwick
i. 290, 326, 327
Effingham, Lady, v. Sir John
v.
Napper
,
ii.
Lord,
v.
Ekius
ii.
v.
Dormer
v.
Macklish
Eld.idge v. Porter
Ek-ock v, Glegg
353
Lord Borts-
mouth
<
228, 470,
ii.
456, 494
70, 71
Walker
v.
Ellison
Airey
v.
ii.
I 484.
ii.
89
10,
131
278
ii. 79,80
i. 327
183, 229
ii. 463
Burgess
v.
v.
Cookson
v.
Ellison
ii.
Elmsliev. Macauley i.
Elton, exparte
v. Elton
i. 55. ii. 18, 71
Elwin v. Elwin
ii. 14
Ely, Dean and Chapter of, v.
Warren
Emery
Emmerson
Emperor
340
ii.
Wase
v.
Heelis
v.
v.
311, 337,
ii. 537, 557
i.
Rolfe
299
398
i. 212
n. 69
i.
i.
Englefield v. Englefield
Entwistle v. Markland
i. 274
Errat v. Barlow
Errington v. Attorney Gen. ii. 203
v, Avnesly
i. 29, 330
v.
Chapman
i.
274
ii.
v.
Esdell
v.
Ward
Buchannan
71
n.360
i.
ii.
417,
228
i. 378, 380
Essex v. Atkins
ii. 184
Etches v. Lance
Eton College v. Beauchamp i. 25
i.
209, 409,
Evans v. Bicknell
410,412. ii. 338
i. 98
v. Cheshire
v.
Cogan
Evans
v. Lewellvn
Evelyn v. Evelyn
v.
ii.
292
ii.
185
i.
209
ii.283
v.
i. 403, 404,
477, 478, 519. ii. 23
Foster
ii. 559, 5iiQ
353
v.
Templar
i.
i.
406
202
378
i.
ii.
Applebee
i.
v. Ellis
186, 220
i.
337
Atkinson
v.
173
210
428
173
i.
100
i.
482
227
Merriman
ex parte
Ellis,
143,
ii.
ii.
Hele
v.
227
i.
512,513,514
ii. 19, 20
v. Elliot
v.
109, 173
ii. 225,
i.
v.
Davenport
v.
338,
ii.
140
i. 388. ii.
Montolieu i.388
Collier i. 400, 506, 511,
,Lady,
232
S26
ii.
Montolieu
v.
Pref, xxi
ii.
i.
216
NAMES OF CASES.
Everett
Vol.
T't.'P.
ii.
4i 4,
Backhouse
V.
Ewelme Hospital
v.
544
Andover i.
1)11
Vol.
Fellows
Mitchell
v.
Head
Fells v.
Fenhoulet
Corbett
Wallace
229
Exell v.
i. 401, 464
Eylesv. Ward
ii. 388
Eyre's Case
318
Evrev. Countess of Shrewsbury
i. 263, 264, 265,278,282
v.Wake
ii. 574
F.ytou v. Eyton
i. 258, 259
v.
i.
221, 222
Browne
Hughes
v.
v.
199
Feigns, executors
499.
i.
n.
FentOD
ii.
306
i.
172
Gore
of, v.
i.
v.
Rfoystyn
Enever
l'airlainl v.
ii.
Freeman
Fairman v. Green
Fairly
v.
Falkland, Lord,
Fallows
v.
Fane
Bench
v.
v.
ii.
i.
Bertie
Wilkinson
ii.
Farewell v. Coker
Farr v. Newman
Fanshaw
152
433
378
274
i.
Fanshaw
Burroughs
35,
i.
444
308, 402
i. 515
ii. 434
i. 467
i.
Fabrics
.-.
lis
i.
Passavant
v.
141
Ewer
i'<
ii.
Feme, ex parte
Ferrand
Ferrur
Ferrars
ii.
57 S
179
221
ii.
258
ii.
Prentice
v.
i.
Ferrer
v. C'berry
Ferrers \. Ferrers
Ferreges v. Robinson
Fetti place v. Georges
v.
489, 4<H
i,
i.
i.
475
375, 377,
37S
Feversham
Watson
Evans
v.
Fidelle v.
Field v. Jackson
Fielding
v.
14
94
i. S8
ii. 328
Clayton
Finch v. Finch
241
297
ii.
Fife v.
173.
331
ii.
i.
Bound
Win wood
v.
i.
i. 47,
103, 172.
41. 98, 100,147,274
ii,
Nesbridge
377
502,477
119, 120
i. 120
v.
Newnhaiu
v.
Squire
140
259
ii. 52
v. Karl of
Winchelsea i.42,
Farrar v. Lewis
ii. 177
Farrington v. Knightly
ii. 3
Faulconberg, Lord, v. Pierce ii.
Findlay
v.
Farnham
v.
Farr, ex parte
Farrant
Faulder
v.
Lee
v.
Lovell
v.
Fawcet
v.
Fawell
i.
v. Silk
ii.
Stuart
Fotheraill
ii.
ii.
ii.
3G9
ii. 578
137, 270
Gee
i.
v.
Lowther
i.
v.
Fawkener
Heelis
ii.
Watts
226
303
105, 107
511,512,
ii. 291
Fearnsv. Young
i. 68. ii. 422
Fearon, ex parte
i. 206. ii. 451
Featherstone v. Cooper
ii. 557
Featherstonehaugh v. Fenwick
v.
Feize
v.
Randall
i.
78. ii.492
220. ii. 543
Fell, ex parte
v.
v.
v.
lege
294,314,303.
Fisher's Case
Fisher
Bay ley
v.
Company
Fishmonger's
i.
v.
v.
128
142,
410, 411
217,307.
Burk
ii.
4SS
250
Faueonbridge
ii.
255, 25
Succomb
v.
Fitzhugh
v.
Lee
Clarke
Flanders
v.
Flarty
Odium
v.
East
i.
ii.
Fitzgerald
Fleetwood
v.
i.
Fletcher, ex parte
v.
Dodd
.- v.
ii.
ii.
493
344
458, 580
i.
ii.
i.
ii.
Robinson
282
202
ii.
Ash burner
v.
ii.
159.
Green
Bathurst
ii.
i.
ii.
Fitzerv. Fitzer
v.
Browne
Lutwidge
v.
India House
Fitton v. 3Iacclesfield
78
144, 150
ii. 333
i.
397,404
ii. 296
ii. 459
ii. 286
ii.
Wood
v.
i.
i.
i.
i.
165
ii.
v.
v.
ii.
ii.
2S9.
109
509
195, 198
i. 2 13
NAMES OF
liv
CASES.
Vol. Pa*e,
Vol. Page.
Fletcher
Flint
v.
Tollett
i.
319.
Brandon
v.
Field
v.
Flower
Floyed
v.
Floyer
v.
Herbert
Powis
Laving ton
Shcrrard
v.
v.
Foden
Ford
i.
320
Penn
Fraine v. Dawson
ii.
137
Franco
i.
131
i.
173, 185
Franco i. 383. ii. 141
Frank v. Frank
i. 62, 326
Frankland v. Franklaud ii. 308,
342
i. 415
i. 213
344, 350
i. 515
i. 1S2
ii. 398
i. 340
v.
j.
v.
v.
140
ii.
Cocker
Howlet
Foley v. Burnet
Folkes v. Western
Folkingham v. Croft
Fonerau v. Fonerau
Fludyer
ii.
ii.
314
Franklin's Case
v.
v.
v.
(58
v.
312
339
7G
v.
i.
v.
Compton
ii.
Fleming
ii.
v.
Peering
v.
Franklyn
227
312
i. 260
343, 367
ii.
Forderv. Wade
Fordes v. Denniston
ii.
Ford
Forrester's Case
v.
i.
v.
v.
Vassal
v.
Foster
v.
v.
Hale
Marchant
v.
Munt
502
47, 49
ii.
291
ii.
i.
ii.
ii.
Dear
Freeland v. Johnson
Freeman, ex parte ii.
French
v.
v.
Foulds v. Midgley
Fountaine v. Caine
Fowkev, Hunt
v. I.rvv.n
i.
250
ii. 340
ii. 342
41, 47
ii.
i.
100
354
i. 512
515
i. 513,
392. ii. 37,38
i. 471
i.
ii.
v.
v.
Foy
v.
Pans
i.
ii.
87
37, 54
276,
46
ii.
ii.
136
221, 253
436, 468,
470, 473, 478
i. 411
Barnes
101
i.
Bishop
ii.
Freeman
i.
87
Goodham
i.
Pref.
Freemantle v. Banks
Freemoult v. Dedire
i.
314, 480,
v.
French
v.
Baron
v.
Davis
84, 87, 89
v.
Foy
v.
163
ii.
Frederick i.
289, 293, 294.
v.
v.
v.
Frewen
Frewin
v.
v.
v.
Fritwell
Fry
v.
ii.
Hobson
Roe
Relf
Charlton
v.
481
427
47, 49
ii. 122
ii. 159
ii. 84
i. 395
i.
Preston
ii.
Kaye
Porter
34
i.
Frith, ex parte
Frost
viii.
ii.
76, 303
5^4, 589
Wassail
Fotherby v. Harrridge
v. Pate
Fothero-ill v. Fother"ill
David
v.
i.
v.
Fowlerv. Fowler,
Pox v. Fox
361
ii.
Blagden
Cooke i. 484.
316
530
379
Jii. 313
ii.
ii.
Fraser v. Bailie
Frederick v. Aynscombe
479
v.
ii.
Colquhoun
Fenn
v.
125
i.
ii. 40
Cotton
i. 477,
v. Lord Leigh
478, 503, 505
Forsyth v. Grant
ii. 44
Foster, ex parte
ii.
458, 476,
v.
451
Lord Brownlow
i. 333
ii. 382
Colquhoun
i. 229
Feme
i. 44
Franklinii. 116
Frith
ib.
Smith
Thornburgh i. 285
v.
i.
i.
v.
v.
v.
227
302
ii. 3
ii.
Alvares
Bolton
v.
70
ii.
Fordyce
v.
13, 14,
Poyntz
v.
Foy
ii.
i.
Pref.
viii.
319
429
390
xxi.
24
48S
75, 76
ii,
Flood
v. Morris
Fuller's Case
Fryer
ii.
v.
ii.
519,
i.
Furnival v. Crew
i.
Fursacre v. Robinson
ii. 541,
Fydell, ex parte
ii.
521
309
326
543
names of cases-
It
Vol. Page.
G.
Gage v. Bulkelev i. 147.
v. Lord Stafford
Lady
v.
Strafford
Gainsborough,
Clifford
249
ii. 214
ii. 218
ii.
Countess of, v.
i. 64. ii. 336, 340
Lord
Lady,
Gainsborough
Gale v. l.iiido
Gallivan v. Evans
238
118
ii.
Garbut
Hilton
v.
Gardenner, ex
- v.
Gardiner
ii.
Gibbs
Mason
Gardner,
ii.
of,
Bradley
Donovan
Garland, ex parte
v. Garland
Garlicke V. Pearson
Gam
ii.
ii.
Gam
v.
i.
v.
Mevrick
v.
Ward
Carthshore
v.
v.
Gascoigne
GaskelTv.
v.
110
Bott
h. 65,66, 68
v. Clarke
i.
351
v. Doll
ii. 66
v. Jeyes i. 95, 213, ii. 573
v. Lord Mountfort
i. 57,
Paterson
v.
Rogers
510
i. 372
ii. 280
ii. 505
192, 193
174, 178
i. 57
v.
Scudamore
i.
v.
Seevington
ii.
v.
Smith
Whitacre
Kinven
v.
ii. 72
i.420
i.
312, 313.
Isherwood
07
91.
i.
410
98
i.
289
250
328
357
269
15
< u
k
ii. 151
v. Durdin
Gawler v. Standewicke ii. 14, 21
v. Wade
ii. 153
< .a) tor, ex parte
ii. 472, 473
Geary v. Pearcroft
i. 364
v. Sheridan
ii. 351
14,
i.
i.
i.
164
114
ii.
240
Hort
v.
i.
i.
203.
ii.
191
146,
370
Manley
Gilbert, ex parte
Boorman
v.
Matthews
Verdedun
v. Watson
am, ex parte
v. Locke
v.
Girling
i.
160
123
287
291
ii.
32i
ii.
ii.
v.
n. *
Severn
Lee
..25
Gladwin v. Hitchman
Glaister v.
221
i.
Wray
v.
17
379
588, 590
>
Gillet v.
Gil more
585
ii.
v.
114
ii.
-ii.
Gil
ii.
ii.
Gildart v. Moss
Gildeniehi v. Chamock
Hewer
388, 396.
488
ii.
Glanville
Glass
v.
v.
Fenning
v.
Payne
Gleuorchy, Lord,
Glover
227
i.
i
Oxenham
ii.
v.
v.
Bates
v.
Faulkener
43*
i.
.
ii.
ii.
249,
Girlbrd,exparte
114, 119,205,
ii.
i 1
1.285
108,
v.
i.
Thwing
Harman
ii.
Skin-
v.
ii.
Garthside
499.
i.
v.
i.88
Chahe
ii.ll
v.
393, 397
Ongier
Gibson
..
Cotton
323,
295,
328
506, 474
514
Garrett v. Pretty
ii. 25, 26, 29
Gason v. Wordsworth ii. 203, 205
Gartside v. Gartside
ii. 252
- v. Isherwood
ii. 357
v. Rate-line
i. 259
i.309
Garth v. Baldwin
Cole
171, 187
Garnons v. Bernard
Garon v. Trip pet
v.
v.
ii.
v.
i.
300, 327,
ii.
ex parte
Assignees
220,495
m.530
i.
Cau nt
v.
528
ii.
ii.
373, 374
i.
324
ii. 18
477, 539
Shannon
v.
v.
ner
Garforth
Garish v.
parte
157
v. Hills
ii.
154
Galston v. Hancock
Gallon v. Hancock i. 408, 505. ii.
{71
61
i.
Gibbons, ex parte
v.
502
ii.
91
ii.
i.
Vo'. P..?*.
Gedge, ex parte
Gee v. Spencer
Gell v. I lay ward
George v.
v. Mil bank
Bosville
51
;:>:,
i-
447,450
i. SC9
ii.
NAMES OF CASES.
lvi
Vol.
Glover v. Portington
307
Clyde v. \\ right
ii. 70
Glynue v. Bank of England
i. 22. ii. 324, 332, 359
Goate v. Fryer
ii. 377
Goddard v. Pritchard
ii. 109
Godfrey v. Boucher
ii. 550
Strothorf
v.
- v.
v.
v.
Gofton
v.
v.
Goman
v.
Davis
ii.
Turner
Watson
474
234, 482
ii.
Mill
i.
Sedsrwick
Salisbury
4U
ii.
Spray
v.
Goodwyn
v. 4.ister
ii.
ii.
ii.
ii.
v.
558
39a
400
219
21
ii.
202.
Gore
123
i.
Purdon
ii.
304
i.
175,
ii.
ii.
149
370
Gosling
v.
Dorney
Tracey
Gould v. Tancred
Gosfl v.
Gourlay
v.
Duke
i.
473
324
i.
425,427,
ii. 410, 412
208,
Londonderry
ii.
Grave
81
Gravenor v. Ilallum
ii. 82
ii. 44
Graves v. Boyle
v. Budgell ii. 320, 301,
Gray
v.
White
v.
Powell
Chiswell
v.
v.
's,
Mathias
Lord, Case
Graydon
i.
v. Hickes
Greatorex v. Cary
Green, exparte
v.Belchier i. 403,485. ii.7l
v. Charnock
ii. 217, 218
v. Ekins
i. 53, 81, 90
v.
Lowes
v.
Pigot
v.
P ritzier
v.
v.
179, 180.
ii.
14
279
01, 239
i.
Rutherforth ii.
Smith i. 289, 290, 291,
Stevens
v.
Greenaway
v.
325
450
i.
Adams
350.
i.
393
302
ii. 497
ii. 509
ii. 548
ii. 210
ii.
Greenhill
Greening, ex parte
Greenway, ex parte
Gregg, ex parte
Greenhill
v.
i.
v.
Minnethorpe
25
519
132
i.
i.
Cockerill
ii.
444
209
i. 493
ii. 355
i. 180
ii. 99
30. ii. 29
ii. 47
ii. 547
i.
Kentish
ii.
90, 91,92
ii. 79,
Lord Salisbury
v.
v.
134
i.
v.
98, 99
30
377
ii.
i.
i.
i.
v.
ii.
of Somerset
Gowland v. De Faria
Graydon v. LIU key
Graham, exparte
Graham
323
283
i.
v.
17
24, 1G2
i.420, 427
i.
Gompertz v.
"i. 348. ii.
Gong v. Radford
i. 411
Good v. Blewit
ii. 145
Gooday v. Butcher
i. 44
Good fellow v.Burchetti. 4G8.ii.39
Good ha li v. Harris
i. 278
Goodier v. Ashton
ii. 352
Goodinge v. Goodinge
i. 08
v. Woodhamsii. 272,284
280
Goodman v. Purcell
i. 490
Goodright v. Sales
i. 408
Goodtitle v. Morgan
i. 255
Goodwin v. Archer
ii. 217
v. Goodwin i. 55. ii. 289
Graham
i.
Godwin, exparte
-'
Vol. Page.
P.'i-TP.
ii.412
Gricev. Goodwin
Griegnier, ex parte
Grid Is v. Gansall
Grier, ex parte
Grierson v. Eyre
Grieves v. Case
353,
ii.
354
534
ii. 434
385, 387
i. 470
ii.
i.
ii.
ii.
ii.
ii.
i.
ii.
358
534
315
547
113
54, 5G
HA
\
Griffin
I>.
Vo\
Nansoii
i.
-',
Taylor
i.
319
Griffith
v.
Hamilton
v.
Harrison
II
Haberghara
194,197
85,86,87,
v. \
ere
n.
Grimes
\.
Grimmett
G rimstone, ex
parte
Hales
ii.
514
v.
530, 547
v.
Grosvenor, ex parte
ii. 517
Sir Richard, ex parte
v.
Potts
v.
ii.
v.
Lane
i.
Grove, ex parte
ii.
v. Dubois
Grumbleton, ex parte
Guavers v. Fountaine
Gudgeon
finest v.
Guidot
ii.
ii.
i.
Guidot
Holland
v.
i.
316.ii.
i.
v.
Noyes
v.
Potter
Guise
v.
i.
Gulatorr, ex parte
v.
Guralej
v.
v.
Gurish
Dale
Fontleroy
362
518
330
108
405.
Halsej
v.
v. 1)oih)\
an
Gurney v. Longman
Guth v. Guth
Gwillim
Gwinett
v.
v.
Stone
Bannister
Gwyne, ex parte
Gwj nne
v.
v.
Heaton
Lethbridge
GyrTord, ex parte
Gyles v. Wilcox
v. Hall
VOL.
I.
i,\
ii.
370
457
458
269
220.
i.
301,2
ii. 419
i.
i.
124
307
350
i. 113
in 519
i. 37
ii. 375
i.
i.
i
i.
191
126
428
ii.
15
165
158
n.
252
n.
165
473.
ii.
i.
57 s
330, 337
i.
i.
401,402
100, 3:57
270
310
i.
54
i.
i.
ii.
2(17
i.227
Smith
ii.
v.
Terry
v.
Warren
Hamilton
300
ii.
i.
i. 427
Lady Ger-
Denny
v.
,
104, -242
Prior
Gunter
ii.
39,40
21
287,338. ii. 578
i. 102
Hallett v. Bousfield
i. 28
Hallifax v. Hi-gins
ii. 215
Halsam, exparte
i.
342,343
Halsey v. Grant
i. 41
Halston's Case
Hambling v. Lyster ii. 14, 74, 70
i. 424
Hamerton v. Rogers
11
ii.65
Guise
287
ii.
Hardy
Hewer
v.
v.
ii.
ii,
Butler
Carter
Daniel!
Hall
11
i.
v. Ramsden
Homphray
(juillam
i.
i.
389
517
513
i.
v.
129
470, 477
i.
v.
i.
Curratt
v.
12
i.
ii.381
Webb
Hall, ex parte
v. Lord Bruce
20
ii. 505, 507,
Groom, ex parte
Gun
amp
v. Sntton
Halfhide v. Fenning
Haley v. Shaftoe
~>1
Rolliston
183
ii.
v. Slial'to
565, 566,
582, 586, 591
v.
525
ii. 53
ii.
139
French
v.
Grimmett
Hail
ii.
ase
32
i.
HarTey
v.
Hairby v. Emmett
Hale v. Cox
293, 420
Grignier, ex parte
1,439,
Haigh, ex parte
Wood
\.
i.
Leonard
v.
Hague
90
49
ii. 00
i. 213
366
i.
Rogers
Sprat by
v.
lak
Haffej
89,
\ incenl
v.
18(
ii.
ii.
I\il
ol.
\.
CASES.
t'i
102, 124
v.
Griffith
Vuiilt:
VIES
Duke of,
v.
Duke
of,
rard
,
v.
Mohun
v.
Hamley
Hamlyn
301
Lord
ii-
\.
v.
Hammond
Worley
i.
Fisher
Lee
i.
ii.
v.
Anderson
Douglas
v.
Toulmin
v.
i.
103
470. 506
Hamond v. Word-worth
Hampden v. Hampden
503
165, 363
ii.
5l!>
i.70
il.
ii.
i.
546
425
258
467
ii.
Hamper, ex parte
120
v. Hodges
Hanaj v.M'Entireii. 177,184,185
Hampton
i.
NAMES OF
lviii
CASES.
Vol. Pnge.
Hanbury v. Hanburv
ii. 33
Hanby v. Roberts i. 408,500,502,
503
Hancom
v.
Allen
Hancox
v.
Abbey
Handeock,
Han key,
116
i. 475,470
ii. 558, 500
ii. 548
ii. 505
at;-.
Hammond
v.
Simpson
i.
v.
Vernon
ii.
515
v.
Stevens
ii.
141
Hannis
v.
Packer
Gardiner
i.
480
104, 121,
132, 130. ii. 177, 285
v. Graham
ii. 12,13
Harcourt v. Sherrard
ii. 287
v.
i.
v.
Hardcastle
Weymouth
v.
ii.
v.
Glynn
i.
Kardins
v.
Ilardwicke
v.
Forth
Harrison
v.
Hogg
Myud
ii.
ii.
v.
Rumsev
v.
Southcote
ii.
i.
i.
90
206
I!.
104
Vernon
Hardy v. Reeves
Hare v. Shearwood
Harton
v.
i.
357
70
490
470
i.
132
i.
ii.
i.
v.
Aston
Ashley
v.
Desbonverie
v.
East India
Company
v.
Harvey
i.
Harvey
v.
ii.26,
i.
Harman
v.
Camm
v.
Fisher
Harmood
v.
Oglamler
Thomas,
Sir
60
432
gue
Harwood
i.
113
Hase v. Groves
Haslewood v. Pope
474.
71,72
ii.
,
i.
i.
360
ii.
ii.6
v.
v.
Toc.ke
i.
Mountain 359
i. 437
i. 33
57, 500,
n.351
Harrison, exparte
ii.5I4
Kurt v. King
Kartopp v. Hartopp
i.
ii.
Whi'ttnore
Harrington v. Du Chattel
v.
v.
Harris
Wheeler
v.
Barnes
v.
Da u beney
v.
Harris
v.
Jngledew
v.
James
Mitchel
Pollard
v.
79
i. 134
i. 329
ii. 53
ii. 290
ii.
Simpson
v.
V. Smithers
Haster v. Weston
Hastings, exparte
Hatch
Tremenhere
55.
ii.
ii.
i.
ii.
i.
ii.
325
200
234
403
95.
417
ii.
211
ii.58S
Hatch
v.
ii.
503
432
497
ii.
103
i.
Haye's Case
Hayter v. Rod
Hathornwaite v. Russel
453.
ii.
407
i.
131.
i.
189
88
ii. 71
i.428
i.
v.
Harris
518
34, 79
Hassel
46
275, 376.
Haimerv. Plane
511.
i.
ii.
302
481 494
i.
27
332
i.
Harqrave v. Tindal
Hurland v. Trigg
255
ii.
ii.
-,l.ord, v.
255
54, 217.
Harton
149
53
ii. 174
ri. 354
40. ii 6
ii. 224
164, 173,
i.
Middlehurst
v.
21
400
356
ii.
ii.
Hart
52. 496.
i.
ii.
Ridley
v.
13
258
IIS
235
ii.
Hartop, ex parte
Hartwell v. Chitters
v. Hartwell
Harty v. Shrader
i.
Edge
- v.
v.
v.
ii.
ii.
108
ii.
Foreman
370
ii.
Chettle
Sinithson
v.
v.
v. iNaylor
81
Hanne
Hanson
Ruckle
ii.
ex parte
v.
Vol. P.ige.
v.
Harrison
ii.
Hatton
v.
Haughton
Haws
v.
Hatton
v.
Harrison
Haws
v Warner
Ilawes v. Wyatt
Ilawkes
ii.
v.
Saunders
442
i.
i.
500.
ii.
i.
31
264
ii.
RAMI
01
JiX
Vol
Hawkins, ex parte
Crook
v
-- V.
Leiffh
Middleditch
V.
i.
Obeen
- v.
-J8
i.
1.
v.
i.
ii.
Hay, exparte
Hoyden, exparte
Hayes v.Hayes
Hayford r. Benlpws
Haynes v. Mico
ii.
ii.
ii.
ii.
Egerton
v.
Head
i.
Bance
Heard v. Stamford
Hearle v. Greenbank
v.
i.
i.
Barber
v.
i.
255
ii. 342
424,481
viii.
i.
389
41, 47
ii.
Pereival
Fleet
107
i.
Paignon
i.
Robinson
v.
Hemming
v.
Henehman
v.
HnnkLey
Aver
Henderson, exparte
Hendy
v.
Heneage
v.
- v.
Huy
Meggs
ii.201
v.
v.
Heneage
Hnnloeke
Kvance
25
145
409
340
402
23
ii.
ii.
ii.
i.
ii.
Stephenson
v.
Henegal
577
i. 56
Tarrant
v.
i. 424.
487, 501
v. Dean and Chapter of
\\ estmiuster
i.. 299
Hereford, Bishop of, v. Adams
ii.
i.
i.54
il>.
ii.
310
58
328
ii.
Hercey
v.
v.
Birch
i.
Dinwoody
79, 60,
i.
206
Home
v.
v.
Heron
Mcers
Meyrick
i.9l
500
i.
Heron
Hertford, Marquis
i.240
v.
of,
v.
Bone
330
4G, 50
i.
Hervey v. Ilervey
Hesketh v. Lee
Hester v. Weston
Hewart v. Semple
Hewitt v. M'Cartney
v. Hewitt
Hibbert
201
541
15, 83
ii. 144
213, 214
Heatley v. Thomas
i.
377, 370
Hebbletwaite v. Cartwright i. 402
Hedges v. Caxdonel ii. 3S{), 4-10
Hell, in the matter of'ii. 500,508,
Helston
n.270
i. 279
ii.
ii. 70, 71
Perry
Heathcote, Sir John, v. Sir John
Hellier
Durand
ii.
v.
v.
v.
42
373. ii.332
Herbert's Case
exparte
v.Wright
Hewson v. Tooky
Hibbard v. Lambe
Heath
v.
ii.
Pref.
v.Ogilrie
Heath, exparte
v.
114
i.
250.
300.
ii.
Hearne
Hepburn
i.
Phillips
v.
ii-
v.
Heames
185
20
i.
Paget
Company
Henley
38
202
i.
v. Stillingfleet
Head
1S9
110
i.
Hoyterv.-Stapilton
Haywood v. Diinsdale
v.
558
502
422
224
518
403
ii.
ii.
Hand
v.
152
i.
Penfold
Taylor
v.
Haws
388
^;!), 304
334, 336
55, 57, 58
ii.
v.
ranee
201
ii.
Day
Holmes
v.
Vol
Henkle
:{50
ii.
i.
i.285
ii.
ii.
ii.
i.
407.ii.
Ill
n.
317
v.
i.
Mill
Higdenv. "Williamson
Higgins, exparte
ii.
ii.
v.
V.
Crawford
Dowler
ii.
i.
gg inson s case
Hia Jpn v. Sv'ddal
v. Crawford
1
ii.
Hilbert, exparte
306
245
307
519
i.422
Higham, exparte
Highway v. Banner
43
220
i. 58
i. 326
ii. 329
ii. 424
i. 429
ii. 489
477, 535
i.
Hickeu v. Hicken
Hiek v. Phillips
Hicks v. Con vers
Hide v. Hetwood
v.
134
u. 55.
Rollestone
Hibhlethwaite's Case
Hiern
234
272
213
134
ii.
i.
79
i.389
i.
ii.
53.
ii,
40
583, 586
Hildersley v. Deviscber
ii. 311
Hildyard v. Cres^y
ii. 279
Hill, exparte
ii. 500, 541
v. Adams
i.
408, 410.
ii. 151
337
f2
NAMES OF
lx
Vol. Pace.
11
V.
CASK?.
NAMES OF CASKS.
Vol. Pap
Hotlghton, expnrte
ii. 101
v. Geltey
ii. '-'AT
Houson \. Earl Wilmington
ii. 300
Hovendon v. Lord .Anneslcv 1.302
Hovey v. Blakeman
400.
i.
122, L23
ii.
Hon
\.
Chapman
v.
Wilden
Howard
i.
481.
i.
Brairhuaite
\.
'J4
ii.
v.
Hopkins
Howard
Jem molt
low den
Howe
I
[owse
J|o\
le
237
i.
51
ii.
53
337,
ii.
i.
College
v.Hughes
482
v.
Hulme Tenant
Humble v. Bill
.
Hume v.Edwards
i.
513, 514.
Humphreys
v.
i.
37
i.
228
509, 511,
ii. 94, 95
IJumphrej
v.
Bullen
i.
Hunsden
Hunt
v,
heney
Matthew
\
ii.
ii.
ii.
v.
Priest
v.
To
i.
4-21
19, 81
423, 124
i. 211
ii.
199
423
303
480
182
163
Price
i.
-'377
Skynner
i.
';<>:
i.
219
i.
Biscoe
v.
Hvln.n
\.
Morgan
v.
i.
102, 103
105. ii. :J0O
i.
Rhodes'
v.
i.
211, 339
May
i.
Vaughan
v.
v.
ii.
.Mitchell
ii.
Monice
v.
i.
Innes v.Jackson
v.
Johnson
v.
Mitchell
ii.
309
v.
Irish V.
Rooke
v.
ii.
lth.
Ives
i
Ivie
Ivy
\.
.i
ii.443
'
i.
v.
112.
ii.
56, 327,
i.
Harris
285
352
370
104
188
40;j, 40!, 485
i.
v.
i.
Medea lfe
v.
20!)
309
ii, 280
i. 60
u. 79
ii. 50
Humpage
Beane
i.
Gompertz
v.
11
143
14, 15
i.
Kittle
Irnhani v. Child
Irod v. Hurst
l^aae v. De 1'riez
v.
360
315
410
ii.
Twyne
Inwood
Inland
12, 13,
i.
Gilbert
Kckew
230,259
ii
i.
v.
Ingram
v.
.Ms
Morre
v. Tu\ It-ur
Humpheys v. Moore
v.
104',
exparte i. 204,
205, 268. ii. 41, :J47
Inchiquin, Lord, v. French i. 475
v. O'Brien
i. 480
I nekton v. Northcotei. 382,472,
506. ii. 70, 71
ii.
Humphry
ii.
95, 179
407, 508,
29
I.
Iuham
v.
Baselv i- 95, 208,
224,25:3. ii. 188,301, 75
ii.
ii.
Ibbotson
Iggulden
272,508.
17, 197
ii. 105, 107
427. ii. 395
Huguenin
\
Hyde
Inglet
i.
Kearney
Williams i.
Greenhill
14
14
Massareene
ii.
190
Lord
v.
ii.
ii.
Hammond
v.
Hvlton
of Morden
i.
130
ii.
v.
Hyde
i.
1:4
ii.4G4
l)oull>en
Trustees
v.
v.
v.
2 13
ii.
Manning
Mannington
v.
Hutchin v.
Hutchinson
139
320
ii. 78
i.
lewson
Hutcheon
185
ii.
Husbands
v.
v.
339,440
i. 325
v.
v.
493
ii.
Hubbard, ex parte
Huddlestone v. Briscoe
uson
184 185
Noyles
Parrat
Chapman
Pollard
Petit
Howell
v.
v.
v.
ii.
ii,
Husband
Husbands
1
ii.
v.
v.
Duppa
\
\
i.
Rogers
v.
v.
Howell
i.
v.
v,
I
i.
(arris
M'Cray
v.
,36G
257
414
38, 323
i. 407
Castle
!
425
213
ii.
Hunter
Husband
i.
ich
i.
100
J.
Jackman
v.
Mitchell
i.
185, 1^'
226.
ii.
124
vames of
Jxii
Vol.
Jackson, exparte
v. Butler
ii.
i.
Cat or
v.
i.
Eyre
v. Ferrand
v. Jackson
ii.
evef
V Petrie
V Purnell
V Rawlins
Jacobs
Jacobson
v.
v.
Ogilby
295, 297
153
ii.
i.
ii.
v.
272
432
307
209
Peck
v.
Jolley
Stainbridjre
ii.
-- v.
Alephsin
i.
Bougett
Colbeck
ii.
478
v.
-- v.
ii.
v.
Collier
v.
Coxeter
Davis
v.
v.
v.
Jones
i.
3 10.
-- v.
Morgan
ii.
Jenour
Looks
Merlon
v.
Seilick
v.
i.
ii.
ii.
Jervis v.
ii.
i.
Jenour
Jern'mgharn v. Gla6S
Jerrard v. Saunders
Jervoise v.
Wi
Coll.
ii.
Duke
White
v.
n.
i.
2o
Jesson v. Jesson
Jessy p v. Duport
Jesus Coll. v Bloom
i.
208
200
ii. 33
ii. 204
v.
Suffolk
v.
Thomas
v.
Tuberville
71. 123.
v.
Williams
ii.
.'con v. Ru Rh
ii. 113
Jewson v. Moulson i. 380, 387
Johnson, exparte ii. 520,521,541,
559
Jordan
i.
ii. 191
330, 331
i.
ii.
v.
ii.
v.
Joseph
3-30,
v.
Mott
482.
337,
340
56
ii. 235
ii. 59
28, 413
ii. 283
i. 4C8
ii.
Saw kins
Cox
v. Doubleday
i.
437
184
225,280
ii. 25, 29
ii. 250
Jortin, exparte
Jury
219
244
308
01, 440
ii. 209
ii. 237
i.
ii.
ii.
i.
ii.
Earl of Strafford
187
i.
ISO.
51
119
i.
v. Roe
v.Sampson
- v
ii.
i.
Marsh
v.
408
i.
-v. Pawlett
- v. Pengree
-v. Pugh
- v. Price
Duke
v.
v.
170, 409.
Bruton
v.
290
210
439
180
.-
137,250,200
i.
344
142,143,
289, 405
ii.
Juke?
103
in 22
i.
v.
S80, 381.
Langhtori
Lewis
- v.
Martin
Mitchell
v.
48,
ii.
- v.
Jennings
451
49
415
ii. 200
430. d.496
i.
273. ii.75,/7
Jeffs v. Wood
ii. 36, f>04
Jenkins v. Hvlesi. 344, 345,349.
Jeffreys
184
ii.
ii.
Harris
- v.
ii.
i.444
ii.
v. Cibbons
v.
426
473,477
ii. 175
ii.
v.
471
i.
East
Jones, exparte
_J
90
ii,
Cower
v.
96
193, 196
i.201
ii.
Jolliffe v.
402
v. Keymier
ii. 512
v. Oades
i.
415
Janson, Sir Thos. ?. Kaney ii. 338
Jason's, Sir Robert
i. 100
v.Jervia
i. 219
Jebb v. Abbott
i. 490
Jewries v. Harrison
ii. 423
v. Renons
i. 398
Jeffreys
ii.
i.238
ii. 408
i. 323
i. 325
399,400
ii.
492
229
ii.
i.180
Twist
Jolland, ats.
385.
i.
Jaroinbv. Harwood
James, exparte
v. Dore
v.
33
i.
Williams
la Craze
Johnson
v.
ii.
ii.
i.
291
184
i.
i.
Ooodman
De
v.
v.
Shepherd
Amyatt
v.
417
82
ii.
85,110
ii.
v.
Cnrtis
Medlicott
Northey
Nott
Saunders
v.
v.
273, 48a.
Hall
v.
Browne
v.
v.
Jacob
429
v.
21
ii.
-- v,
Johnson
187
211
ii.
i.
Vol. Vipe.
P.-12-r'.
472, 509
v.
case?.
i.
NAMES OF CASES.
Ixiii
Vo'. r.
Vol. Pa',".
K.
Kaiu v. Hamilton
Hampshire \ Young
ii.
34
234
522
i.
&74
i.
i.
Kaye
v.
Boulti n
Kebble, ex parte
Keeble v. Thompson
Keeling v. Browne
Keenv. Stuckley
Keighley v. Browne
Mackrell
Squire
v.
Kempe v. Antill
v. Kempe
.
Prior
v.
i.
203.
Kendarv. Milward
Kenebel
\.
Kennedy
Scrafton
v.
Daly
">
i.
Kentish v. Kentish
Kenyona v. Worthington
Kerrick v. Barnsby
Kerry, ex parte
Townsend
v. Atwood
Key v. Brads haw
Kidney v. Coussmaker
Eustace
Countess
4S4
i.
ii.377
i.
ii.
Kettle v.
Kettleby
Killiwrew v. Killigrew
Kilmurry's, Lady, case
206
478
55
i.
>i
i.
v.
Smith
v.
Wightman
236
v.
v,
27
ii.
82
10,
278
11,04
Webb
ii.
98
Ravensworth Hospital
ii. 129, 550, 551
ii. 127
Kirkham v. Chadwick
i. 302
v. Smith
i. 371
v. Kirkinan
ii. 109
v. Milles
ii. 395
Kirkpatrickv. Love
Kirkby
v.
Kitehin
v.
Kittear v.
406
509
ii. 53
ii. 29
Bartsh
Raynes
ii.
'
ii.
Knapp v. Williams
Knight \. Cameron
Maclein
ii.
ii.
ii.
Knight
1.433
ii. 24l
242
329
170
ii.
v.
163
101
ii.
i.
v.
Hobson
292
ii.
John
v.
22
ii.
ii.
Barker
i.55,500
Sir
409
309
i.
Duplessia
57, 50,
42, 111
418
100, 169
i.
v.
i.
ii.
ii.
of,
'
401
ii.
308
i.
i.
Kinworthy v. Allen
Kir by v. Potter
Stainsby
Bridgman
Kent
Manissal
Martin
v.
532
'
v.
v.
ii.
125
84,88,111
i.
Kinsman
424
i.
ii.
4li>
103,104
ii.
Dennison
Hake
i.
ii. 88
ii. 110
Kennel v. Abbot
ii. 542
Rennet, ex parte
ii. 211
Kenrick v. Clayton
ii. 403
Kensington* ex parte
L207,27l
Kent, exparte
v.
v*.
v.
358
ii.
86
245
i.
ii.
ii.
180
i.
v. Withers
Kingeotev. Bainsley
Kingdon v. bridges
Kinnersley v. Simpson
Kinsey v. Kinsey
v. Yardley
Westbrooke
Kendall, exparte
1,
i.203
24S, 249, 250,
251
180
i.
Squire
v.
v.
i.
ii.
Miller
v.
20
ii. 529
ii. 256
i. 517
305, 400
ii. 357
Kelyway v. Kelyway
v.
21
v.
i. 258
Lord Huusdon
i. 57, 183, 425
v. King
ii. 372
r.Wightman
i.329
ii.
Clarke
i121
King, exparte i. 11. ii. 471, 478.
485, 510, 523, 53H, 563
i. 308
v. Brewer
ii. 447, 449
v. Cnvi-w
i. 379
v. Del aval
lis
1.483,500
ii.
v.
Kinchant v. Kinchant
Kinder v, Jones
ii.
Keiley v. Monk
Keith, exparte
Kellsall v. Ben net
Kemp
Kingston
v.Jfoseley
i.
117, 184,
ii. 191
ii.
i.
i.
153
490
120. 121
ii.
10
n.
Knollys v. .Alcott
Knott, exparte i. 422, 424. ii.
198
143
259
v.
Lord Plymouth
lxi V
iMES OF
CASK.-.
Vol. Page.
Vo!. Page.
Knowell, exparte
ii.
Kuoulesv. Broom
ii.
v. Haughton
Knox v.Browne
v. Si
170
75
207
204
548
ii.
mm on ds
Kock, ex [jaite
Koningsby, Lord,
51(>
ii.
ii.
Jekyll
v. Sir J.
100
17
ii.
Koops, ex parte
i.
Langley
Browne
Lord Oxford
v.
- v.
Lacon
v.
Lansdowne
Hogg
Lasliley v.
v.
SO
Lathrop
Latoueh
Laundy
v.
Briggs
v.
v.
i.
504
92
30-1,
Lace}
ex parte
Moore
v.
Lacon
i.
ii.
v. Mertms
Lake ats-
v.
i.
Causefield
Craddoek
v. De Lambert
v. Decon
v.. Gibson
v. Lake
Lamb
Thomas
Milnes
v.
Lambert
Lam lee
v.
i.
200
ii. 312
ii. 102
ii. 133
ii. 180
ii. 102
ii. 02
i. 417
377, 385
Lambert
Hannam
v.
24 (i
198
ii.
v.
v.
24'>,
ii.
i.
11
231,2 34
i. 433
Lampet's case
Lampltighv. Lamplughii. 99,100
i. 89
v. Smith
457
ii. 78
ii. 383
ii. 473
Lanchester, exparte
1
and
v.
ii.
Devaynes
down
Elderton
Lane, exparte
u.
v.
Langdale
Langford
v.
v,
Langdale
Gascoyne
119,
122
v.
Pitt
i.
291, 349
tiny
.
v.
Sandm.^
Lan^taffv. Fenwick
v. Taylor
i.
ii.
i.
87,
384
81),
92
00, 427
ii. 432
421
i.
180, 227
204, 208,214
241,410
Lawson
v.
Barker
v.
Lawson
v.
Stitch
v.
ii.
152
89
ii.7, 75
4G7, 409, 470
ii.
ii.
4, 88,
320
i.
Maynard
i.487
ii.
i.
Leaverland, exparte
ii.
Lechmere
i.
v.
v.
Lechmere
Lord Carlisle
i.
Lewis
Le Cornpte, exparte
Ledwich, exparte
ii.
Legard
ii.
V.
v.
Sheffield
v.
Alston
v.
Brown
Cox
v.
v.
280
304
544
289,
290, 312, 327
i
397
Charlton
v.
2<;8
ii.
i.
ii.
ii.
Lane's Case
i.
Hooper
v.
ii.
i.
ii.
Law
ii.
v.
18, 19
Lee, exparte
ii.
Iloblis
Newdigate
Wiiliams
i.
125
Dighton
v.
495
133
i.
Williams
374
130
179
444
v.
v.
v.
Lawley
501
ii.
351
Marsh
Lord Dunsany
v.
Amicable Society of
Lancaster,
(il
i.
ii.
ii.472, 520
Lavender, exparte
Law v. East India Company i. 191
i.282
Briggs
v.
01,
4:J0
i. 428
Laugston, exparte
L
v. Bovlston i. 142, 143,
Lanoy v. Duke of Atholl i. 203,
275. 477
ii. 270
Lansdowne v. Elderton
Lassels v. Cornwallis
L.
42
i.
SirRobt. Henley
Lee
Muggridge
Pascoe
Prieaux
Wallwyu
Warner
Willock
Leech v. Leech
i.
ii.
ii.
313
320
509
382
275
479
i.70
ii.
i.
i.
128
313
23,41
i.
ii.
i.
392
377
270
370
i.412
402
340
ii. 70
ii.
ii.
MES OF
\.\
Pa ? e.
Vol
Duke
Leeds,
of,
Radnor
l.onl
i.
25.
lxv
f'ASKS.
351
ii.
V..1
.Ancy
Lillia v.
i.
377.
v.
Lord
Countess
of, v.
Lincoln, Lady,
ii
Lurl ofStraf-
26
ii. 504
ii. 507
ii. 475
ii. -LA
i. 323
291,312,315
i. 309
ford
Leers, exparte
Lees, exparte
L'Fit
L'Batt
v.
Legal
Miller
v.
Legard
v,
Legate
\.
Hodges
l.i
Joliusou
v.
Legg
Sew ell
Goldwiae
icester, exparte
v.
ii.
Ixo^e
v.
Barry
LutkiQs
v.
Thomas
52
455, 470
.. 22G
i. 251
i.
it
123
ii.
i. -){;-)
w.
145
i. 17
Leightoni. 72,141,142
ii. 535
Leman, exparte
v.
Newnham
v.
Lempster, Lord,
ii.
156,163
Lord Porafret
v.
168, 189
312. ii. 98,
i.
Lcnch
I.erich v.
i.
L25
LeNeve
\.
Leonard
v.
LeNevei. 2C0.
Ansel!
Leonard
Lr\
itt v.
Le^in
v.
Need ham
Lew in l.
New castle
Eboral
Lindopp
Liugard v. Bromley
\.
Lord Darby
\
v.
v.
Freke
v.
Morgan
v.
Nangle
Pead
v.
wkner
i.
v.
\
Linguet
Lindsey
v.
(i(i.
-r.A
ii.
252
i.415
Lister
ii.528
Lister
v.
91, 1)3
i.
Buckley
Li ttle hales v. Gascoyue
Livesey v. Wilson
v.
Lloyd, exparte
Baldwin
Cardy
v.
v
v.
i.
ii.
Collett
i.
v.
v.
Jones
Loaring i. 191
Maejcworth
v.
Makearn
ii
Duke
i.
Hereford
i.
i.
339
140, 407,
408,
ii.
i.
el!
145
191
ii.
317
i.
Passinguain
353
i.
ii.
-237
188,
u.
4<iS
Read
ui.
Tench
174
Williams
l!
i.
98,108
i.
i.
407
517. 510
488, 500.
n.
Lobb, exparte
Lock v. Bromley
v. Lock
Lockey
Lockey
Loci- yer v. Savage
'^
20
355.
i.
ii.
225
542
380,387,390.
'1A
99, 100,
Spillett
Stoddart
493
400
Scott
'.50
of Montrose
ii.
ii.
'
Posvis
432,433
ii. 518
n.
18-3
329, 348
Griffith
ii.
92
116
290
i. 4
5, 508
352,353,490
Joluies
V.
15
ii.
i..
v.
V.
..
ii.
v.
v.
533
ii.
expaite
Littlelmry
192
ii.
ISO
...
v.
523
i.
Linthwaite, exparte
543
302. ii. 226
i. 405
i. 90
Piercy
v.
382
338
i.
v.
idderdalc
ii.
ii.521,
Croucher
Eade
Sea wen
ats.
ii.'.'
472.
i.
Freeman
Lickbarrow v. Mason
I
i.
485
290,291
i.
ii.
row
v.
v.
57
192
L 481,
i.
Rattray
Chase
Hi
of
"4s_>.
Sowray
Lingham v. Sturdy
Lin gen
Lewis, exparte
v.
! 15
i.
ii.
i.
70.
Duke
ii.
ii238, 252,
265, "207, 269
v.
i.
Leife v. Saltinystone
v.
30:2
i.
v.
Leigh
ii.
i.
Leek, exparte
Pelham
i.
65
ii.
439
i.
195
74,303
n. 50(i
SAMES OF CASES,
IXYI
Vol. Page.
Lomax
4<>7
ii.
Lokerv. Roke
i.
Mayor of,
-,City
Fyt<
Bolt
v.
Levy
-, v.
173
lii.
i.
ii. 301
103,173
Mitford i. 336
v . Nash i. 320,
of, v.
,
324
Richmond
i.
336
v.
ii. 217
Lonergan v. Rokeby
Longv. Burton
ii.
294, 316,
327
v. Lamina
i. 435
ii.
70
v. Long
v.
Short
v.
Steward
Longman
Lonsdale
v.
v.
Littledale
v.
Lord, exparte
Lothian, Marquis
of, v.
v.
v.
Morgan
v.
Lowe
v.
v.
Lo.wndes
Lowndes
Copeland
Lowther v. Andover
v.
V.
ii.
555
175
Garforth
ii. 270
i.
370
i.
153
477
186,213
i. 334
i.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
Evans
Lucas
v.
Temple
ii.
123
n.
349
i. 171
104,27;,
Car rill
i.336
ii. 22
Condon
ii. 170
Hamper
Lowther
i. 91,
i. 142
Ray
-
ii.
421
31)4
ii.
430
ii.
320,
i.
430
231
ii. 272
ii. 300
ii. 555
ii. 590
265 ii. 582
ii.
Wilson
Ludlam's Case
Ludlow, exparte
i.
Luke, Parish of, v. Parish of St.
i. L39
Leonard, Shoreditch
Lund, exparte ii. 451, 477, 571
Lupton v. White i. 83. ii. 333,
Lurgan v. Bowen
Lush v. Wilkinson
ii.
300
376
220, 221
506
204
i. 514
Lutwyche v. Lutwyche
v. Win ford
i. 353
Luxton v. Stephens
ii. 426
Lyclclel v. Weston
i. 347
Lydiat v. Sir John Foach
ii. 02
i. 25
Lyifard v. Coward
i. 85
Lyggon v. Strutt
ii. 582
Lyne, exparte
Lynn v. Willis
ii. 353
Lyon v. Chandos
i. 398, 402
v. Dmnbell
ii. 295
ii. 425
Lyre v. Parnell
Lutkins
Leigh
Lutterell v. Reynell
Lyster
v.
Dolland
v.
i.
500,'
ii.
i.76, 418,
497
Lyttleton, exparte
Lytton
v.
ii.
Lytton
ii.
591
410
M.
Maberly
Carlton
v, Spillett
Commerford
491
ii. 71
i.
v.
Mabank
ii.
Cal croft
12')
i.
v. Collins
v.
Lowson
234.
ii.
Milford
Lancaster
Barchard
Leesh
Lovel
120
ii
i.
Love v.
Lovedon
96
8,
ii.
ii
270
Ca Hi ford
Church ii. 113, 117,
118
Lord,
-,
v.
v.
Webbi. 120
,v.
Lucas
v.
4-3
ii.
of, v.
v.
ii.273
Hankey
London, Bishop
Vol. P.iS".
Geriam
Lubiere
227
274
ii.
Lomax
v.
of,
v.
v.
Metcalfe
ii.
Turton
i.
v.
Blake
ii.
Fitton
Maccormic v. Boiler
v.
342
272
i.
i.
383
436
380
348
i.
Macdonald v. Hanson
ii, 591
Macdougal, exparte
v v. Shurmer
57, 58
Macher v. Foundling Hospital
i. 34
ii. 574
Machin v. Salkeld
i. 27
Mackenzie v. Mackenzie
i. 419
v. Robinson
ii. 472
Mackerness, ex parte
i
NAMES OF
CASKS.
lxvil
Vol. Pa?e.
Vol. Paje.
ii. 50
Mackintosh v. Townsend
Macklin against Richardson
v.
12G
229
418
180
12"),
i.
Macleod
Drummond
i.
ii.
Mackreth
i.
Swumon6
v.
^Iurlar
v.
100,
ii.
Markham
ii. 170
ii
Markland, exparte
504
Marlborough, Duke of, v. Lord
Godolphin i. 439, 44:). ii. 19
v. Duch<
ii. 223
Marlborough
Duchess of, v. Sir
,
Thomas Wheat
100
Macnamara
Macqueen
Jones
i.
Forquhar
i.
v.
v.
57, 187,
ii. 131
240, 342
428
ii.
Macauley
v. Philips
Maekworth's,
Case
Sir
i.
380, 388,
389, 390
Macreth
v.
ii.
v.
Clifton
ii.
Thomas
Symonds
v.
Andrews
222
240
400
i.
409,
i.
ii.
257,418
504,530
i.
249,250.
ii.
Macwilliams, exparte
Maddison
5t85
i.
Brings
v.
v.
Jackson
v.
Maddox
ii.
ii.
153
257, 311,
340
Magrath v. Lord Muskerry i. 34
Maguire v. Allen
"ii. 188
Maine v. Melbourne
i. 304
Mai re, ex parte
ii. 559
Maitland v. Wilson
ii. 237
Makeham v. Hooper
i. 502
Malcolm v. Martin ii. 66,69, 70
Maliu v. Keighley
Mallabar v. Mallabar
Mallach v. Galton
Qfamel v. Bowles
ii.
i.50
ii. 353
417
332
i. 197,198
Manaton v. Squire
Maugham v. Masson i. 470,483
ii. 290
Mansrlemaa v. Prosser
Manlove v. Bale and Brnton
i. 427
Maiming v. Herbert
ii. 23
v. Lechmere
11. (M2
v. Snootier
i. 474
exparte
ii. 380
Mum ell v. Mensell i. 393, 394
March v. Head
i. 388
M.i re, e\| .arte
ii. 500
Margerum v. Sandiford
i. 4*9
Margrave v. Lady Hooke i, 425
JMjiii v.
Ward
Marriott
v.
Marryat
Mursden
v.
ii.
ii.
v.
Panshal
v.
.Marsh
!..)
Evans
v.
387
ii.
341,345, 364
Hampton
I. 04
Towuley
i. 459
Bound
ii. 203
i.
92
ii.
exparte
Howe
-- v.
v.
Martin
421
i.
312
ii.
Lee
Marshall v. Frank
v
ii.
255
ii.
ii.
i.
i.
Mason
i.
Armitage
4G9, 470,
ii.
Marton, ex parte
Mascall v. Mascall
Maskeen v. Cote
v.
55
465, 475
ii. 362
i.
1:3
ii.
Madox
Marlow v.Smith
Humphrey's,
v.
Wilkinson
v.
mi
583
37, 89
ii.
ii.
214, 21
296, 2:51
ii. 329
Gardiner
ii.288
Massareene v. London
ii.
117
Massey v. Davis
i. 378
Master v. Fuller
v. Kirton
i. 78
Masters v. Bl'liet
ii. 242
i. 480, t
v. Masters
v.
ii.
73,94
Matthews, ex parte
ii. 517
v. Bishop of Bath and
Bristol Well*
i. 260
i. 423
v. Curtwright
v. Matthews ii. 37, 38,
v.
Stockdale
v.
Stubbs
v.
Wallwyn
Warner
i.
ii.
i.
S2,
39
120
383
43G
ii. 451
V.
Maundrell v.Maundrell i.498,410
Maw
v.
Harding
Mawer v. Mawer
Mawson, exparte
Mawsou v. Stack
Maxwell
v.
Phillips
i.
ii.
ii.
i.
ii.
519
109
543
226
171
NAMES OF CASE.v
txviii
Vol. Pag;*;
Vol. Pasrc.
Maxwell
Wettenall
r.
ii.
May
v.
Lewen
v.
Wood
Maybank
Maylin
v.
488
G5, 07
ii. 89
i.
473
'294
Mill v. Mill
ii.
Hoper
Hochin
i.
Mayne v.
Mead v. Lord Orrery
ii.
i.
18
19
228, 42G
193
i. 21
v. Webb
Meudovvs v. Duchess of Kingston
ii.
248
220
ii.
Meaghan, ex parte
Meal v. Meal
i.
ION
43, 252,
i.
Meastair v. Gillespie
i.
Medlicott's Case
ii.
O'Donncl
v.
253
479
205,
i.
...
i. 363
v. Martin
Meers, Sir Thomas, v. Lord Stuurii. 261
ton
i. 322
Meeres v. Ainsell
Medly
Meliorucchy
v.
Meliorucchy
217
ii.
Mellish
v.
Da
v.
Mellish
Costa
i.
i.
GG,
v. Williams
Mellor v Lees
Mendes
260, 267
272,443
ii. 410
i. 415
Mendes
v.
i.265
v. Payne
Mentney v. Petty
Menzeyv. Walker
Mercer v. Hall
Mentii
Meredith
v.
Merevvether
331
ii.
220,
Mertins v. Joliffe
Metcalfe v. Beckwith
v.
Ives
ii.
i.
257
202
i.
114, 145,
14o, 148, 170
i.
65,
405
Middlecorribe
Middleton
v.
v.
v.
.
v.
Marlow
Cator
Clitherow
Dodswell
Messenger
v.
v.
Suiter
i.
ii.
220
55
ii.
5(5
188
ii. 17
ii. 5
u.
i.
19
281
i.
342
ii.
i.384
ii.5-18
555
404
- v.
ii. 305
ii. 280
Milner v. Golding
v. Lord liarewood ii. 320
i. 00
v. Milner
i. 377
Milnes v. Busk
i. 337,338
v. Gery
v. Slater i. 444, 474, 475
Mills, ats.
v.
ii.
Banks
Handson
Milsington,Lord,
i.
v.
Earl of Port-
Earl Thauet
Minor, ex parte
ii.
156
330
380
Lord Mohun
ii.
401
more
Milward
v.
Minshull
v.
ii.
i.
Dors
Draper
239,406,434
Harvey
Warren
v.
i.
45
4G0, 523
ii.
250
26, 30
Mellish
v.
fteare
v.
133
ii.
Millet v. Rouse
Milligan v. Cnoke
Millner v. Colrner
31 ills, exparte
47,
392
ii.
Bower
ii.
i.
1G7
320, 321
ii.
v.
i.
i.
70
583
611
ii.
Millard v. Eyre
Miller v. Miller
v.
226
i.
ii.
'
517, 519
Wynn
v.
313
ii.
i.
i.
Mildmay, ex parte
v. Hungerford
v. Mildmay
Miles v. Lingham
ii.
ISiooks
v.
v.
Harris
Mitford, exparte
v.
v.
Mitford
ii.
i.
ii.
165
252
ii.
505
ii.
i.
237.
i.
70
121
372, 382,
NAMES OF CASES.
lxhc
Vol. Pn-p.
v.
Luard
v.
Powell
Melineux
Molloy
Mondrey
Monuins
v.
v.
Mondrey
Monnins
Montford, Lord,
Monkhouse
Bedford
'
v.
ii,
\.
v.
Moor
!27
v.
Dillingham
79,80
v.
13,
ii.
12, 13,
ii.
v.
Steele
Walters
v.
v.
v.
Stephenson
v.
v.
ii.
151
v.
186
Mossop
v.
v.
Moore
45,
64,406,410
i.
200.
25?
192
ii. S7
i. 107
ii.
Mordaunt
v.
Hooper
v.
Hnssey
Thorold
v.
Sir
Richard,
ii.
Earl of
Scarborough
Mores v. Huish
Moreton v. Tmville
Morgan, exparte
v.
Scudamore
ii.
-- v.
v.
v.
i.
392
i.
-178
ii.
291
i.
4-0
i.
135.
Hani
ii.
Mather
Slaughter
ii.
i.
Morison v. Tumour
Morley, exparte
i.
ii.
228
506
340
299
57
v.
Burrough
Hankey
Morris, exparte
50">.
ii.
i.
355
326
ii.
181
ii.
54S
12
312
336
ii.
94.
i.
ii.
03, '215,
Davis
ii.
101
Orchard
ii. 339
Mortlockev. Buller i. 188,204.
321, 328, 342, 349
Morton, ex parte
ii. 510
Mosely v. Virgin
1.320
ii.
2~8, 392.
l<>8
i.
v.
Macoamara
ii.
i.228
324
v.
Meynell
Dickens
310,311
i.
Roach
v. Royal
i.
Mortimer v. Capper
v.
v.
i.
Cullo( k
Beck with
Faulkener
v.
i.
ii.
ii. 490
107,198
409,411
ii.
v.
395, 396
elsh
Morecock
More,
Morse
ii.
Elme
LeNeve
c
ii. 57, SO
390. 405,
31, 40,46
i.
'in.')
ii.
i.
Copper Company
ii. 250
Moore v.Aylet
ii. 331
v. Bennet
ii. '2.">7
v. Foley
i.
309
513.
Corporation
of
876, 877,437
Holmes
129
Durham
Burroughs
;>75,
v.
v. -V\
v.
[;.
i.
231
Lord Cado-
14
Montacute v. Maxwell i. 297,8
Monteith v. Taylor
ii. 290
Montgomerie v. the Marquis of
i. 4-20
Bath
Moody
ley
ii.
Monk
Lord
'/I
Lessees of Lord
v.
Bishop of
ii.
v.
I!.
Vol. P.u'c.
Morris
v.
Sfi
Monk
i.
122
241
I.
Irvin
v.
285
ii.
Ward
ii.
Eadoa
Atwood
116
22
i.213
v. I'rouie
ii. 489, 492
Motteux v. Mackreth
ii. 317
Moule, exparte
ii. 4( S, 473
Mounstuart v. Mounstuart i.264
Mountague, Lord, v. Dudman
Moth
v.
v.
i.
i. 161
Lord Sandwich
i.
221
Monntford, exparte
i.
44, 207,
272.
v.
Tavlor
ii.
i.
188
108
102
333
Munday
i.
Murat v. Gorden
Murphy, exparte i. 220.
Murray v. Lord Ellibank
i.
ii.
l!>7
437
502
i. 3S8,
389, 390
v.Shadwell
Muscottv. Halhead
Musgrovev. Dashwood
214
222
i. 292
ii.
ii,
ixx
STAMES
01'
CASES.
Vol. Pa^e.
Vol. Page.
.Mussel
Morgan
v.
i.237
Newton
Niceol
100
i. 51
v.
Nan nock
Nantes
Napier
v.
ii.
Hoi ton
i.
Chalie
354
T-'aylor v. Taylor
ii. 295, 296
Neale, exparte
ii. 582
v. Nonis
ii. 200
v. Wadeson
ii. 222
Neave v. Nottingham
ii. 487
Need ham v. .Smith ii. 323, 440
Needier v. Deeble
i. 428
Neil so n v. Cord ell
ii. 294
Nelson v. Old held
i. 207
Nelthorpe v. Pennyman ii. 384
Nerott v. Wallace
H.522
Nesbit v. Tredennick
ii, 120
Nevarre v. Rutton
i. 75
Neve v. Weston
ii. 250
Neville v. Saunders
i. 357
v. Wilkinson
i. 209, 233
Newburgh v. Uickerstafi
i. 74
-, Earl of, v. Wrei. 100.
ii. 250
Newcastle., Duchess of, exparte
ii. 563
N< wcom.be v. Ronham
i. 415
Newhouse v. MilbanE
i. 12
rv. M it ford
ii. 374
Newland v. Champion
i. 229.
ii.
153
ii. 90
Newman
06.
r
'
v.
Kearsley
v.
v.
Osborn
Judson
v.
Leeson
i.
v.
Maynard
i.
i.409
ii. 174
ii. 71
ii.
~ .
,
393
Browne
v.
-,
ii.113
:<7S
Northltiirh v.
v.
v.
Payne
Rogers
v.
Wallis
New
River
483
45
94, 90
ii.
Company
v.
i.330
i. 104
Graves
i.
Newsham
v.
Newstead
v.
Gray
i.
Johnston
113.
ii.
ii.
138
418
85,80,88,
89,90
v.
Searles
Newton, exparte
v. Bennett
Champernon
ii.
i.
i.
ii.
i.
494.
ii.
'222
534
120
ii.
Way
v.
v.
i.
Luscombe
Frecker
v. Mascall
v. Norton
Turville
i.
87
25
361
i.
i.
v.
v.
ii.
Duke
Northlike, exparte
Nortlieyv. Strange
Northumberland, Earl of,
of Aylesford
Norton
361
i.
Lord, v. Purdon
v. Far! of Strafford
Hodgson
v.
287
434
177,211
i. 26
i. 429
ii. 275
i. 216
ii.
v. Wilkinson
Noseworthy v. Bassett
North v. Ansel!
Duke
i.
Kennedy
Neve
v.
v.
v.
Newman
of, v.
of Devonshire
Norris v. Bacon
Northcote
Johnson
Normanby, Marquiss
207
v.
38
63
28
Nicholson v. Pattison
i. 24
Nightingale v. Dodd
ii. 310
i. 196
v. Law son
Nisbet v. Murray
ii. 89,91,183
i. 191
v. Smith
Nobkissen v. Hastings ii. 220,236
ii. 532
Nockhold, exparte
Noel v. Iveson
i. 303
i. 230. ii. 96
v. Robinson
Norcott v. Norcott
ii. 438
Norfolk's, Duke of, Case i. 360,
i..'!8l
v.
215
Howe
ii.
"
i.
Gould
v.
v.
*~"
391
555
v.
Barton
Cartooy
Godfrey
v.
ii.
ii.
i.
ii.
39
270
i.
ii.
v.
"
Lady Efhngham
v.
v.
---
480
377
i.
Coi'roek
v.
v,
Nicholls, exparte
N.
Prowse
Nandick v, Wilkes
Nairn
Rowse
Wiseman
v.
ii.
ii.
37
206
582
ii.
v.
21
Earl
ii.
31
i74
i. 338, 440
i.513
378. ii. 208
Nott v. Hill
i. 89, 98, 100
Nourse v. Finch
ii. 88, 90
ii. 377
Novosielski v. Wakefield
Now Ian, exparte
ii. 523, 524
JL-VMF.S
\
13,
14
Nugent
Nurse
v. (I y fiord
i.
Groom
v.
Nutbrowne
v.
Denne
v.
Duke
0.
Chapman
Li.
O'Brien
v.
417, 430
i. 119
.O'Connor
O'Calagl an
410
ii. 30
it.
looper
Ockenden, exparte
O'Connor v. Cooke
v.
ii.-">ll
304
i. 69
ii. 434
i. 208
ii.
Spaight
O'Dea
<)'[), a v.
Odell, exparte
Ogilvie v. Hearne
ii.
Ogle, exparte
's Case
572
530
i. 15
ii. 98
i. 300, 333
ii. 19, 20
i. 404
ii. 134
i. 207, 209
i. 321
ii. 204
ii.
O'llara v. O'Neal
O'Herlily v. Hedges
Oke v. Heath
Okeden v. Okeden
O'Keefev. Calthorpe
v. Casay
Oldfield
v.
Round
Oldham
v.
Carleton
v.
Casey
v.
Hands
2<>9
i.
95
317
i.
v.Hughs
v. Oldham
218, 351,
409, 444
ii.
Ogverv. Haywood
i.
ii.
183, 184
Oliphant
ii.
Oliver
ii
v. Hendrie
Frew en
v. Hamilton
Omerod v. Hard-man
v.
ii.
O'Neal
Onions
v.
Mead
v.
Tyrer
50
00
i.
50G
i.
Ihitcliinson
ii.
Or me v. Smith
Onnsby, in re.
ii.
ii.
29
410,428
of Leeds
73,
ii.
71
Tenant
v. Usher
Osbrey v. Bury
Osgoodev. Strode
Osman
v.
Osmell
v.
i.
183
ii.
h.
430, 138
393
371
i.
327.
i.
Fitzroy
ii.
i.
310
38i
i.
2 2l
ii.
Probert
Osmond v. Fitzroy
Osmyn v. Duke
of
Cleveland
233
21G
i. 200, 302
Oughterlony v. Lord Powisii. 245
i. 310
Out read v. Round
Owen v. Curzon
ii. 399
i. 294
v. Davis
v, Foulkes
ii. 384
i.
Manning
Otway v. Hudson
Otley
v.
v. Griffith
v.
Jones
v.
Owen
i.
i.
72.
v.
ii.
4:59
ii.
335
84
120
ii.
Williams
Oxburgh v. Fine-ham
Oxenden, exparte
v.
ii.
403
ii.
ii.512
Lord Compton
ii.
505,500 ,585,5SG
Oxenden
i. 391
Oxford and Cambridge Universities v. Richardson
i. 17,113
Lord, v. Ladv Rodney
i. 478
v.
Oxley
v.
Pack
v.
Lee
185
i.
P.
Bathurst
G{)
v.
Cooke
v.
Lever
Neal
v.
v.
bury
Paine v. Miller
- v.
91.
-'s
332,330
ii. 75
Palk
131, 197
Palmer
v.
i.
ii.
i.
519
ii.
251
ii.
232
ii. 82,83
Page
Archbishop of Cunter-
v.
Paice
495
371
523
i.
Packer v. Wyndham
Page, exparte
i.
v.
9G
ii.
v.
189
ii.
345, 347
103, 430, 437
i.
Only v. Walker
ii. 339
Onslow v
j.38
Ord v. Wilkinson i. 105. ii. 2 l_>
Order. Heming
i. 417
v. Huddlebtoue ii. 238,289,
242
O'Reiley, exparte
19
i.
Ormond
ji.
131,
i.
199, 296
Oates v.
O'Brien
Vol. Pa.-e
Orr v. Kaines
Osborne v. Browne
2*28
ii.
Thornton
v.
ixxi
Page.
.1.
of,
OF CASES.
Sydney
i.7
Case
Lord Clinton
ii.
i.
ii.
v,
03, S(}
289, 290
ii.
i.
Alicot*
302
433.
150, 289
i.
518
NAMES OP CASES.
Lxxii
Vol. Pn
Palmer
ord Aylesbury
v. T
v.
Elliot
v.
Jones
\.
Mason
v.
i.
L21, 131
180. ii. 71
ii.
i.
Neve
v. Palmer
v.Price
Panquet, exparte
l.
ii.
230
Asm
ii.
v.
Blackburne
Blythmore
Brookes i. 473
v.
ii.
184
215
158
\.
104
i. 190, 201
Gerrard
i. 491
Hutchinson
Parker
i. 50. ii. 27
ii. 390
Prout
v.
516
>!, 417
ii. 207
ii. 530
ii.
v.
v.
v.
Parkes v. White
Parkinson v. Ingram
i.
ii
v.
ii.
Powlett
v.
v.
v.
Haycraft
Baron
ii.
v.
Cratchfield
ii.
v.
Grove
ii.
v.
Piper
Pearnev. Lisle
v.
Morgan
Pearson
v.
ii.
ii.
137,273,
294
75, 77
Partridge ii.
Patterson v. Slaughter ii. 220,
290,328, 411
Patonv. Rogers
i. 342. ii. 283
Patrick v. Harrison
ii. 170
Compton
v.
Paw let
v.
v.
ii.
v.
v.
Paxton, exparte
's Case
v.
ii.
Douglas
ii.
460,461
ii. 207
312, 370,
377, 395
Payler, exparte
ii.
Payley
ii.
Payne
v.
Field
Collier
v.
Payne
v.
i.
55.
36, 39
i.
173.
426
524
ib.
I 'el lew v.
Pel ling v. Armitage
ii.
i.
ii.
>
322.
i.
i.
Pemberton
v.
Pemberton
ii. 1
50S
507
19,443
ii,
73
ii.
Pembroke, Earl
of,
v.
Bowden
i.
ii.
Lord Baltimore
S22.
Peacocke
Penny v. Edgar
Pentland v. Stokes
v.
Peploe, exparte
Pereira, exparte
Perkins v. Baynton
v. Proctor
v.
Thornton
Perrot v. Perrot
Perry v. Barker
v.
Murston
289
202
ii.
187
i.
304
i.
194,
v.
339
73,
188.
i.
Pendergrast v. Sanbergue
Pendleton v. Mackrory
Pengall, Lord, v. Ross
Penhryn, Lord, v. Hughes
Penn
53
368
279
209,210
i.
Mathers
v.
33
317
i.
ii.
Anderson
Gregory
v.
v.
Pember
190
207, 429
ii.
exparte
's Case
Pelliam
ii.
ii.
ii.
Belsher
Brereton
v.
-- v.
Peril ey,
190.
Simpson
Pearsal v.
Pearson
i.
307
379
292
145
292, 298,
i.
v.
Paul
of
26, 37
i.
v.
Pearce
472
Partridge
76
of Bedford
ii.293
Evans i. 98, 99, 213
Monk i. 217, 228,
320, 373, 375, 377
Peacocke
i. 78.
ii. 189, 300
375, 473
392
Parnell v. Lyon
ii. 29
Parr, exparte
ii. 520
Farry v. Owen
ii. 230, 434
v. Rogers
i. 159
Parsons, exparte ii. 457,458,478
v. Freeman
i. 478
v. Parsons
i. 68
Parrot v. Bowden
ii. 241
Parteriche
v.
188
i.
Duke
Duke
v.
ii.
Appleton
v.
Peacocke
55
i.
ii.
~~.
Vol. Page.
Peace v. Chamberlaine
Peachy, Sir Henry, v.
Somerset
2:30
i.
305
507
ii.
i.
ii.
i.
ii.
ii.
i.
ii.
ii.
ii.
i.
i.
i.
i.
192,
419
287,
239
212
286
370
208
582
120
523
332
117
421
417
NAMES OF CASES.
lxxiii
Vol. P.ge.
Ferry
Phillips
v.
125,355,372,
ii.
374,410,413
Whitehead
\.
70,71, 410
517
i. 413
ii.
41
i. 256
Pett'sCase
Pettat
Petfr
i.
Ellis
v.
Ptttiwood
Prescott
Russell
v.
55.
i.
ii.
v.
i. -27.")
Peyton
v.
74
i.
Green
Philips v. Gibbons
Phillips v. Atkinson
v.
342
212
ii.
ii.
Duke of Bucks
ii.
100
i.
3-21.
ICG
205
150
ii.
v.
Carey
ii.
v.
Carew
i.
v.
i. 06,
Chainberlaine
442, 443
ii.
v.
Crawford
Gibbons
Paget
v.
Phillips
i.
v.
v.
i. 180
211,241
ii. 07
471, 475.
128, 175
ii.
Shaw
Vaughan
v.
v.
4S3
422
282
ii.
i.
ii.
Browne
Piddock
v.
Pierce
v.
Taylor
1.180
v.
Waving
i.
Pierpoint
Piers
\.
v.
Lord Cheney
103
403
i.
i.472
Piers
Garnett
v. Shore
Pietj \. Ktace
Pike v. Home
Pierson
310
ii.
v.
ii.
ii.
i.
Pref.
White
Piling v. Armitage
v.
VOL.
I.
Stanhope*
viii
58
338
i.
ii.
271
120
i.
i.
ii,
138
211
Vol. Pae.
Pinckev. Cnrteis
v. Thornyeroft
Pipon v. Pipon
Pitcairne
Pitcher
i.
Ogbourne
v.
Helliar
v.
ii.
Pitt's
Case
Benyon
Lord Carnelford
Cholmondeley
v.
v.
v.
i.520
ii. 84
ii.7
83
72
i.
Fellows
v.
331
251
517
231
Ins
ii.
ii.
Hunt
235,386
40
v. Mackreth
ii. 289
v. Duke of Richmond ii. 399
v. Snowden
ii. 48,
107
v. Willis
ii. 337
Pitts v. Page
ii. 425
v.
v. .lack
v.
i.
-on
i.
Short
Plunknet
Kirk
v.
Plumbe v.Fluit
Plummer v. May
Plunkct
228
395
i.
40G
250, 429
i.
172.
i.
Pensou
v.
i.
ii.
Piatt v. Sprigg
147
ii.
404, 400.
i.
148,230,253
i. 494
Plymouth, Countess of, v. Bladou
ii. 282
Plyston v. Berrv
ii. 29
Pock ley v. Pock ley
i. 470, 505
ii.
Pierson
v.
Pole
ii.
320
480
i.
44(5
ii.
Poole
v.
v.
Rudd
i.
Pool v. Shergold
Pooley v. Ray
Pone v. Bish
i.
352
200, 343
v.
Crashaw
i.
03
252
380
v.
Curl
i.
125
v.
Onslow
Simpson
v.
Popham
v.
Bam field
v.
Horner
Portier v.
Dela Cour
Portington
Portmore
v.
v.
Tarbock
Morris
i.
ii.
425
i. 348
35, 86
ii. 375
ii. 210
ii. 437
i. 00
i.
i.
NAMES OF CASES.
Jxxiv
Portsmouth, Lord,
v.
Vol. Page.
Vol. Page.
Lord Effing-
ham
411, 412
ii.
Portvne
Roberts
v.
v.
Chapman
v.
Keene
v.
Potter
Potter
Leighton
. Reynolds
Poulett's Case
Poulc v. Poulet
Powell v. Arderne
v. Cleaver
ii.
'285
i.
227
301,335
v.
270
ii. 70
ii.
ii.
<
v.
v.
234
ii.
200. ii. 79
114. 123, 537
325
i.
351
ii. 31
Price
i. 54
v. Robins
i. 483, 493
Powis v. Andrews i.200, ii. 191
v. Burdett
i. 398
v. Corbett
i. 424
--- v.
Powlet, Earl,
Pownal
Herbert
v.
King
v.
Pratt v. Sladon
it.
Tessier
Prescott, exparte
v.
Preston
ii.514
Long
v.
ii.
Parker
r.
v.
v.
v.
Fastnedge
v.
Gaultier
v.
v.
James
Hundreds
v.
Seys
v.
Shaw
ii.
i.
i.
175.
i.
of,
ii.
v.
Lamb
Wilkinson
Stebbing
v.
Prime
v.
Prince
Bromley
FTeyliu
v.
v.
-'s
v.
Loman
Case
ii.
227
i.
14
282
Prideaux
Pridgeon's Case
ii.
Primrose
184
i.
Priddey, exparte
Priestley v.
ii.
&c.
v.Williams
Prideaux
ii.
ii.
Rridgman
Dyer
v.
17
380
330
247
434
204
328
424
i.
Prettyman
exparte
Pri< e,
12,
ii.
Wasey
v.
Prettyman
118
ii. 555
85, SO
ii.
.240,242
ii. 275
Taylor
v.
v.
i.
Morgan i.
Cowper
46.
ii.
556
ii. 409
ii. 385
550, 553
Proud
ii.507
214
500
82
i.
i. 512
ii. 475
i.
ii.
Turner
v.
Proudfoot, exparte
Prowse
Abingdon
v.
22
46
ii. 470
ii. 38
61. ii. 29
ii. 307
Smith
v.
Ready
Smith
Hunter
v.
Pulsford
v.
Pulteney
v.
v.
Shelton
Purefoy v. Purefoy
Purse v. Snaplin
Pusejr v. Desbouverie
Pybus
v.
ii.
21
ii.
i,
i.
ii.
Pusey
v.
Pushman
Smith
433
7,10
i. 61
ib.
ii.6
v. Felliter
i.
380
Py e
Daubuz
i.
George
i.
v.
420, 430
ii.
v.
,
exparte
v.
i.
327.
ii.
i.
v.
i.
ii.
i.
489-
303, 393
78, 79, 80:
Pvke
418
315
534
244
i.
Warren
i.
i.
77
316
ii. 109
i. 133
71, 72
i. 320
17,
i. 40,
Pulvertoft v. Pulvertoft
i. 205.
Purcel v. Macnamara
382, 387,
ii. 320, 321, 322,
389, 394
v.
Williams
Pvlev. Pyle
Pyncentv. Pyncent
Py ne v. Dor
390, 533,
ii.
Darlington
Fyke
ii.
21,
ii.
Pulestou, exparte
Pullen v. Cressy
v.
494.
i.
ii.
Pugh
<'17
i.
Combs
v.
40,506
i.417
Oates
Prodgers v. Phrazier
Proof v. Hines
Prosser, exparte
ii.
281
ii.
v.
i.
Morgan
v.
21
v.
Procter
i.
Evans ii.
Knowler
Marty n
v.
190
ii.
289
506
ii.
Probert v. Clifford
289, 291.
i.
il.
Potts
52
i.
104.
i.
189.
ii.
i.
332
303
234
314
115
Q.
Beck ford
Quarrel!
v.
Quick
Staines
ii.
190,304,
f.
305
467
ii.
Quilter v. Mussendine
ii.
Quintin, exparte
513.,
246
514
v.
NAMES OF CASES.
lxxv
Vol. Pa-re.
R.
Richefield
Kadclifl'e
Careless
v.
ii.
Warrington
v.
80
328,
i.
348
H56
i. 410
ii.
J 44
ii. 127
ii. 09
32!),
Radford v. Wilson
Radnor v. Vandebendy
Rainsford v. Taynton
Rakestraw v. Brewer
ii.
Raymond v. Broadbelt
Ramkissensent v. Barker
ii.
221,
243,319
Ramsbottom v. Gosden
i. 322
Ramsdenv. Hylton i. 211, 294
Randall v. Bookey
483. ii. 110
v. Head
ii. 266
Randal v. Morgan
i. 222, 297
v. Randall
i. 320, 328
i.
v.
Ranelagh
Raphael
i.50
Willis
v.
Hayes
v,
Thornehill
v.
Boehm
Vol. Pa ire.
Regina
i.
183, 192
ii.
434
114, 115,
ii.
de Bewdley
i. 23. ii. 368
i
Rennesey v. Parrot
ii. 70
Rennison v. Ashley
i. 166
ii. 130
Reresby v. Farrer
v. New land i. 400, 401,
Ballivos
v.
402
Revet v. Braham
i. 110
Reynish v. Martin ii. 25, 20, 29
Reynolds, exparte
i. 91. ii.53l
Reynoldsonv. Perkins
ii. 110
Rex v. Blatch
i. 16
v. Burrard
i. 15
v. Fowler
15
i.
ii. 521
v. Penot
v. Sneller
i. 10
v. WhitstapleCompany i.75
Rhodes, exparte
ii. 475
Rich v. Coekell
i. 379. ii. 40
v. Jackson
i. 323
Richards
Chambers i. 377,
379, 380
421
Rashley
Rattray
v.
Masters
Darlev
v.
George
v.
Ravenhill v. Dansey
Raw v. Chichester
Rawlins
422
ii. 327
ii. 429
399, 403
ii. 120
ii.
i.
i. 27-")
Goldfrap
v. Powell ii. 37.290,371
Rawson, exparte ii. 102,405,471
Rawstonev. Bentley
i. 34
Raj \. Fenwick
ii.
153
Raymond's, Lord, Case
i.277
Raymond v. Broadbelt
ii. 00
Noble
v.
Symes
Richardson
v.
v.
ii.
i. 122
364,368,
Chapman
Greese
ii.
ii.
v.
Rayner v. Julien
Read v. Bowers
v. Brook man
v. Devuynes
'
v.
v.
Litchfield
v.
Phillips
Reade
v.
Snell
v.
Truelove
i.
ii.
Rider
ii.
v.Kidder
75
75
293, 573
v.
Ridout
v.
Dowding
v.
Lewis
lt7
v.
Payne
Lord Plymouth
i.
ii.
183
370,
ii.
Ridges
v.
v.
122
Reay v. Hopper
i. 487
Redding v. Wilks
i. 298, 3U4
Redington v. Redington i. 191,
"
10-3. ii. 99
Redman v. Redman
i. 230
K< es v. Parkinson
ii. 2S2
Reeve, exparte
ii. 466,548
Reeves v. Brymer
i. 272
v. Reeve*
i. 188
Rigby
v.
ii.
Morrison
ii.
Darwin
ii.
i.dO
473
05
i.
i.
485,
500
Macnamara ii. 380,383,
384
v. Sykes
Rigge \ Bowater
Rightson v. Overton
11
l.
Rimene, exparte
Riotter's Case
v.
73,
i.
Rigg
Ripley
184
425
ii.98,101
Wager
v.
520
ii.
ii.
Bayley
v.
38
237.
261, 352
Ridgeway
73,304.
:,
i.
235
i.
132
23. ii. 13S
ii. 93
i. 475
ii.
v.
Tayleur
v.
Ricketts, exparte
Ricov. Gaultier
ii.
i.
22, 36,
Richmond
369
120
7,
Waterworth
NAMES OF
Ixxvf
Vol.
Rippon
Ritchie
I'ajrc.
v.
Dawuincr
i.
v.
Rowley
Aylw\ n
n.
v.
Rivers's Case
, Earl,
374
Earl Derby
OS
404.
i.
Brahara
v.
Roach
Garvan
v.
ii.
23
177
277
Ilavnps
v.
Roake
Robert
ii.
ii. 225,
240, 301
570
ii.
ii.226
82
ii.
Dixwell
357,447,
i.
449, 450
,
TIartrey
Kuffin
IMassey
.
i.
83.
ii.
i.
Pocork
Romuev
ats.
Rondeau
v.
ii.
i.
227, 233,
Robinson
v.
v.
v.
Cummings
v.
v.
Litton
v.
v.
ii.
i.
114, 115,
Roome
v.
Rose
Calland
v.
v.
v.
Tickell
v.
Tonge
Wardell
Calze
Cranwell
Hetheriugton
v.
Roddam
Roche v. Hart
Roden v. Snrth
Roel>uck v. Dean
ii.
ii.
ii.
ii.
ii.
ii.
55
487
122
ii. 79
i.
i.
Bennett
ii.
i.27
522, 502
373
i.
i.
107, 108
Rougemont
v. Royal Exchange
Assurance Company
ii. 204
Roundell v. Currer
ii. 378
Rous v. North
i. 181
Routledge v. Burrell
i.23
v. Derriel
48, 249
Row v. Dawson
Rowe v.
v.
v.
Rowth
Roy v.
ii.
434
2 3
ii.
274
i.
Gudy,eon
Jackson
'390
i.
v.Teed
Rowlandson, exparte
Rowley v. Ridley
ii.
238, 209
ii.
ii.
518
315
Howell
ii. 119, 121
Dnkfcor'Beauforti. 33,240
Royal Bank of Scotland, exparte
ii.541
v.
Ruck v. Kennegal
Rudge v. Hopkins
v.
i.
Runt
Atkinson
Hammond
v.
Long
78
50
370
507
i.
184,185
ii. 321
i.
217
83
547
i. 420
ii. 483
ii.
i.
428,
Cooper
Whittle
Rutherford v. Dawson
v.
v.
149
77,
ii.
ii.
v.
Russell
v. Smithies
, exparte
v.
253
ii.
v.
v.
i.
ii.
Rumbold
Rush v. Higgs
Rush forth, exparte
Russell v. Ashby
358
13, 14
103
i.
Rose
v.
284
530
186
ii. 120
14, 18, 19
475, 504
v. Ewer
Rotheram v. Fanshaw
97
499
183,
ii.
i.
Ross, exparte
ii.
i.
v.
'
Rose
Rumbold
204, 210
Rosewell's Case
131
v.
ii.
ii.
Cunninjjhame
v.
78,80
i.402
Roome
Rnfiin, exparte
Pett
i.
Wyatt
119
v.
v.
v.
301,
i.
114,342
Davison i. 409,410
Gee
i. 477, 499
Hardcastle
ii. 44
426.
484
490
i.
33
ii.
ii.
Rooke, exparte
v. St.
v.
RbbsOn
52
415
352
i.
Roberts
Robe
211
ii.
Kingsley
*
Skillicorne
313
ii.
575, 578,582
Cook
v.
Vol. Pj?c.
n. 270, 340
Rolfe v. Patterson
Rosewell v. Bennett
Rolt v. Rolt
74.
i.
Clayton
.
347
i.
Milehamp
v.
Roberts, exparte
's Case
0:}
ii.
K dd
Roberdeau v. Rous
v.
v.
Gore
Mackenzie
v.
235-
ii.
Rivet
Rogers
i.3rt
i.
v.
CASES,
Miller
ii.
i.432
ii.
310
305
ii.
297
i.
NA.MES OF C
XX
Vol. Page.
Danbuz
Ryves v. Coleman
Rye
v.
- v.
i.
ii.
Ryvea
420
348
"227
ii.
O
oansuaa
Sackvijle
Sabberton
Ayleworth
v.
v.
Saddington
v.
i.
i.
Kinsman
390
i.
ex parte
ii. 543
v. Hobbsii. 118, 122, 123
ISadler,
Jackson
v.
Commonalty
Sadler's
226
i.
Case
of,
ii.57G
Saggittarv v, Hyde
Salkeldv. Salkeld
v. Science
i.
217, 500
ii.
ii.
Savignon
Sullis v.
i.
252
237
279
v.
Saltern
Salt's
v.
ii.
i.
Case
Salvadore
ii.
Thornton
Salway
v.
Salway v.
Samines v. Rickman
ii.
Samudo
v.
Furtado
Samwell
v.
Wake
Sanders v. Pope
Sanderson v. Walker
San ford
v.
309
258
524
ii.
102
i.
272
i. 489.
390, 421
403
474
ii.
i.
27, 31
92, 93,
i.
i.
ii. 392
Biddulph
ii. 314,315
Sand ford v. Paul
-^ v. Remington ii. 312,
313
Sandon, exparte
ii. 456,465
Sands v. Sands
ii. 309
Sandys v. Sandys
i. 401, 402
Sangossa v. Watson
ii. 424
v.
v.
East India
Sansbury
v.
Read
Company
ii,
143
13
ii.
119,
Sawyer
Bowyer
v.
'''
ii.
192
i,
ii.
4r,{)
exparte
541,042
ii. 393
Serjeson v. Cruise
Sarth v. Blanfry
Saul v. Wilson
194
i.47
i.
549
ii.
Saunders v. Dehew
i.3G3, 409
Saunderson v. Class
i. 90
Savage v. Carroll i. 300. ii. 201
367
155
Bragington
Sant v. Wilson
Saumarez, Jolm De,
8.
Sabberton
Vljl
T,
v.
v.
v.
Foster
Smiillbroke
i.394
v.Taylor
SavilJe's Case, Mr.
V.
>
Savory
i.
321,323
Saville
ii.77
ii. 383
173,272
ii. 537
193.
i.
Dyer
Saumarez, exparte
v.
ii.
Saunders v. Earle
Sawley v. Cower
Sawyer v. Bletsoe
Sax ton v. Davis
Say and Sele, Ford
ii.
i.
ii.
Fail
of,
v.
511
ii.
422
Parker
187
i.
Scarth, exparte
513
400
ii.
Burton
v.
13
254
ii.248
ii.
Sayer, exparte
Scarborough
120
i,
Blackett
v.
'220
ii.
460,526
ScheHinger v. Bluckerby ii. 493
Schenck v. Legh
i. 398, 299
Scholefield v. Whitehead i. 320
ii.
Schoole v. Wall
Schrieber v. Fateward
Scott, exparte
v.
Fawcett
i.
Hough
v.
v.
Mackintosh
v.
Murray
v.
v.
Nesbit
Scholey
v.
Scott
v.
Tyler
421
281
ii. 470
199, 201
ii.
158
ii. 285
i. 322
ii. 385
i.
i.
i.20f)
i.
229.
Vernon
Scrafton v. Quincey
Scriven v. Tapley
ii.
25, 28
v.
Scroope
v.
Scroope
Scudamore, exparte
v. Wlhte
Seurfield
Seagood
v.
v.
40(j
i.
Howes
Meale
ii.
i,
25
201
:j^!>
i.
ii.
ii.
ii.
i.
Of)
497
i. 79
1
18
304
NAMES OF
lxxviii
CASES.
Vol. Page,
Vol. Page.
201
v. Seagrave i. 2C0, 333
i. 477
Seal v. Brownton
ii. 479, 581
Seaman, ex parte
i. 342
v. Vawdry
Seamer v. Bingham i. 282,284
ii. 354
Searle v. Lane
Sedgwicke v. Hargrave i, 311,
345
Seagrave
v.
Edwards
ii.
v.
Wat kins
ii.186
v.
i.
317
v.
ii.
421
Jago
Hi nd
Seilez v. Greathead
Selby v. Alston
Seely
Seers
v.
Selby
Seley v.
Sellack
Wood
i.
ii.
Harris
v.
v.
v.
v.
i.
ii.
237
i.
361
G7, G8
314
ii. 369
ii. 26
ii.
Brid^man
Semphill v. Bayley
Senhouse v. Earl
25:
168, 171,
189. ii. 104
i.
47, ii. 587
i.
Sergison v. Sealey
ii. 353
Serle v. St. Eloy
ii. 407
Setcole v. Healey
Seton v. Slade i. 28, 289, 291,
329, 343, 415. ii. 293, 428
i. 27
Sewell v. Masson
ii. 183, 185
Sliaftoe v. Shaftoe
Shaftsbury, Lord, v. Arrowsmith
i. 165. ii. 148
.
v. Shaftshury ii. 78
Shakeshaft, ex parte ii. 117, 504
i. 484
Shalcross v. Finden
ii. 512
Shank, ex parte
ii. 81
Shanley v. Baker
Shannon v. Bradstreet i. 46,47,
292, 293, 334,412
18
i. 357, 361
Shapland v.
ii. 517
Sliarpe, ex parte
v. Carter
ii. 1 88, 232
ii. 117
v. Gamon
v. Earl
of Scarborough
i. 418, 491
ii. 266
Shaw v. Chine
-ii. 81
v. Cunliffe
v.
Shannon
Smith
Wright
v.
Sheberry
v.
Weigh
ii.
165
ii.
398
v.
Sheffield v. Lord
.
Shelborne
Sherman
v.
22
79
272
179
156
359
ii.
Sherman
v.
171
i.
Collins
v.
Sherwood
Clarke
v.
v.
i.
Smith
White
i.
ii.
ii.
Shine v. Gough
ii.
Ship v. Harwood
Shipbrooke, Lord, v. Lord Hinchinbrookei.277.ii. 122,128,
396, 441
i. 494
Shiphard v. Lutwidge
Shirley v. Lord Ferrers i. 152,
v.
Martin
v.
Stratton
Watts
Shirt v. West by
Sholbread v. Macmaster
Shore, Lady, v. Billingsly
v.
Short
Wood
v.
Shudal
186
227
i. 321
i. 418
ii. 67
ii. 179
ii. 82
i. 318
78,79
i.
ii.
Jekyll
ShuttlewoTth v. Laycock
v.
i,
424,
425
Shrewsbury, Countess
Earl of Shrewsbury
Sibley
Sibley
v.
192
ii. 20
i.
Cooke
v.
Perry
i.
486.
i.
446
v.
of,
ii.
8, 11,
Sibthorpe
v.
Sidgier
v.
Birch
ii.
68
20
382
v.
Tyte
ii.
201
i.
341.
ii. 40, 47
Mulgravei.346
-- v. Lord Orrery
i. 367
Shelburne v. Inchiquin i. 42, 60
i. 260. ii. 257
Sheldon v. Cox
i. 403
v. Dormer
ii. 567
v. Forteseue
i. 202, 203
Shelly v.
208
Shelton ats. *
ii. 260
Shepherd v. Roberts
i. 192
v. Wright
i. 423
v. Tilley
ii. 376
Sheppard v. Kent
Sneddon
Sidney
i.
Briggs
Goodiich
v.
-107
ii.
Thornton
Selwood v. Mild may
*
Selwyn v.
Selwin
89, 91
i.
Dawson
Lewen
Sellers v.
Sellon
218
305
ii. 267
ii.
Shaw
Moxon
ii.
ii. 181
Hetherington
ii. 249
v. Perry
333.
i. 308,
v. Sidney
v.
.
334
357
i. 25
ii.
Silvester v.
Silway
v.
Wilson
Compton
i.
NAMES OF
CASES.
Jxx.x
Vol. Page.
Silk
255, 494
Lord Kinnaird
v.
i. 166, 170. ii. 107
Vallance ii. 7, 8, 10,
Prime
v.
Simmonds
Simmons
v.
i.
Simpson, exparte
ii.
Vol. P3<\
Smith
~-
v.
Cooke
v.
Duffield
v.
i.
77
v.
175, 404,
v.
Hibernia
v.
i.
i
ii.
Company
525
Vaughan
v.
Sims
v.
Yickars
i.
Naylor
ii.
Sinclair v. Hone
Sisson v. Shaw
v.
i.
Bernard
v.
Warner
ii.
Marshall
ii.
v.
Moon
i.
v.
Ktade
287
501
ii. 182
23, 191
i.
298
30
ii.
ii.
161
i.
390.
i.
ii.
95
334
i.
181
27
22G
i, 33
i. 403
i.
i.
Fitzwilliams
Wing
i.
71
Hamilton
ii. 245, 340
v. Onions
i. 122
Prujean
i. 487. ii. 51
ii. 447
Wolfe
Smith, exparte
77.
i.
407, 502,
532, 559
ii.
v.
Althns
v.
Aykvvell
v.
Baker i. 58.
Barnes
ii.
v.
ii-
Bate
i. 209.
Broeklesby
ii.
v,
Broomhead
ii.
v.
Bra nning
i.
Lord Camelford i.
Cave
ii.
v.
v.
v.
v.
Clarke
Clay
i.
i.
257.
80.
ii.
ii.
ii.
i.
i.
170
583
433
472
227
473
372
334
347,
410, 437
118
285
158
102
i.35
ii.
i.
22
173
Serle
ii. 270
Smith i.27G, 283, 309,
514. ii. 21,103
v. Turner
ii. 350
v. Wilmer
i. 16
expaite
ii. 4S3
Smitherv. Willock
ii. 13
Smithey v. Kdmoudson
ii. 472
Smithier v. Lewis
i. 109
Smithson v. Thompson
i. 424
Snelley v. Flatman
11
i.
v.
v.
'
Snellgrove v. Bailey
i. 23. ii. 5
Snellsou v. Corbet
i. 507
Siieyd v. Snevd
i. 238
Sockett v. Wray i. 377, 37S, 381
Solley v. Cower
i. 473, 490
Somerset, Duke of, v. Cook-on
i.
Fotherby
v.
Somerville
v.
v.
v.
Sommerville
i.
Chapman
Mackay
i.
ii.
190
150
309
269
Mackler
ii. 285
v.
Sommerville
i.
Souley v. blaster
Southcote, expaite
98,1(4
ii. 199
v.
v.
4G7. ii.350
393
227.
i.
ii*
v.
v.
Smulley v. Small ey
Small man v. Lord
v.
Kempson
Low
05, 08, 69
Sleeman v. Sleeman
Slocombe v. (irubb
Sloman v. Walter
Small v. Beachley
v.
v.
ii.
ii.10,
Smart
v.
30
442
590
335
i.
V.
Slanoy v. Styles
Shinning v. Style
Sleech v. Thorington
v.
152
ii.
Harwood
Huey
v.
Hoskins
ii.
v.
v.
v.
71
272.
Skeffington v.
Skip, exparte
Skipp
ii.
Morris
Partridge
ii.
158
ii.144,
i.
Doughty
v.
v.
Sitwell
59.
i.
35
401
327
559
n.
Evans
French
Hibbard
123, 188
i.
ii.
517
365
571, 572,
578
v.
Watson
ii.
444.
80, 88, 90, 91
Southwell v. Abdey
South Sea Company
v.
i.
i. 337
Bumstead
ii.
v.
Wymonds
Southby v. Stonehouae
Sou den v. Sowden i. 313.
Spalding v. Shalmer
i.
i.
252
205
374
ii.
125
i.
352
NAMES OF
ixxx
CASES.
Vol. Pafrf.
Yo!. Pa?>.
ii. 33
Sparkes v. Cator
Sparks v. Company of Liverpool
Water Works
Sparret
Sparrow
ii.
Hardcastle
v.
38
543
i.
Spiller
v.
i.
Standisb
Stanhope
i.
Lynn
Spearing
v.
Speed
v.
Phillips
Speldt
v.
Lechmere
Spence
v.
v.
i.
Bryan
Bryant
ii.210
ii.216
v.
ii. 15
Bullock
Earl of Chesterfield
i. 267
Spencer
i. 240
v.
Wray
v.
v.
S purling
v.
ii.
Toll
i.
Spe'.tigue v. Carpenter
ii.
Spink v. Lewis
Spragg v. Binkes
v.
397
447
555
ii.
ii.
i.
Fitzgerald
ii.
v.
John
278
ii. 31 9
Stace v, Mabbot
i.
279
Sjackpole's C;tse
ii. 20
Stackpoole v. Beaumont
.
v. Howell
ii. 93
v. O'Callighan ii. 217
Stack house v. Barnston i. 73.
John, Lord
v.
Ladv,
i.
St.
308.
ii.
ii.
'Standen
v.
Edwards
v.
i.
ii.
378
381
434
579
i. 307
ii. 75
i.
ii.
i.
400, 401,
517, 519
Habergham
397
110
509
422
395
i.
ii.
Stanton
v. Piatt
Stanyford
i.
Sadler
v.
v.
i.
Tudor
Stapilton v. Scott
ii.
343, 344,
i.
346
Stapleton
v.
v.
Cheales
v. Colville
ii.
i.
v.
Conway
i.490. ii.09
Palmer
Shenard
i.
14
171
ii.
515
357
ii.
Staunton v. Oldham
Stebbing v. Walkey
Steed v. Cragh
Steel, exparte
Stevens v. Bagwell
Stewart v. Stewart
Steele v. Wright
Stent v. Robinson
Stephens, ex parte
i.67
i.310
ii.
474, 480
82
ISO
i. 33
ii, 71
ii.
ii.
ii.
512,514
v.
v.
Olive
v.
i.
Trueinan
Stephenson v. Gardener
220, 308
v.
i.
i.
ii.
v.
FIoul ditch
Wilson
Crawley
Roehefort
i.
v.
Stt
Sterne, ex parte
Stevens
Avery
Dethick
Praed
v.
v.
v.
327
200,
211
151
04
i.
i.
12
475, 470
v.
v.
410
220
i.
v. Plank
Stamford Friendly Society ii. 501
v. Hobart
i. 447, 450
Marshall
Stanfield
244
v.
Potter
Stanley
ii.
Lee
v.
22G
Hancock i. 329,348
Glynne i. 470. ii. 07
Squib v. VV'ynn
i. 434
i. 330
Squire v. Baker
v. Compton
i. 408
i. 473
v. Dean
ii. 219
Squirrel v. Squirrell
St.
v,
v.
81
v.
Spurway
Stanley, exparte
13
i. 305.
287, 290
3(0
ii.
549
ii.
294
213
43, 253
ii. 314
ii. 487
170.
i.
Earl Verney
v.
i.
Spencer's Case
-
314
224
i.
Roberts
v.
ii.
Allen
v.
400, 410,
411
Pref. x.
Speake
v.
ii.
Cope
v.
354, 412
Speake
Radley
v.
i.
308
380, 381
i.
ii.
i.
i.
389
319
435
400
161
NAMES OF CASES.
lxxxi
Vol. Paae.
Stevens
Stewart
v.
Savage
v.
East India
v.
Rowe
v.
Worral
Ashdown.
279
i.
Company
1*47
ii.
Rtileman
v.
Stockley
v.
Stoekwtll v. Terry
Stokes, exparte
v. M'Kerrel
Stone v. Evans
v. Lidderdale
i.
v.
Supple
v.
01, 239,
Surrey
ii.
ii.
493
ii.
180
108
570
272
ii.
i.
71,
i.
104,237,251,255
Stoughton's Case
ii. 570
Stowell, Lord, v. Cole
Strachey v. Francis
Sutton
v.
Harris
Stratford
Strathmore
Stratton
Hogan
v.
v.
Howes
ii.
Best
v.
Grymes
v.
401
i. 120
ii. 47, 49
ii. 304
ii. 2(8
285, 280
ii. 43
ii. 25
40, 41
Strange
Street
Harris
v.
Lord,
Rigby
v.
i.
ii.
33, 321.
ii.
Stribblcliill v.*Brett
S:ribley
Hawkie
v.
Strickland
Strode
v.
Aldridtre
Blackburne
v.
v. Little
v.
Stroud
Strutt
Stuart
Parker
v.
Deacon
v.
Marshall
v.
v.
Baker
Tavlor
Stubba v.
Stud holme
v.
3
30
252
ii.
Smith
v.
Hodgson
231
301
i.
ii.
240,
i.
253
109
ii. 240
i. 28
i.
166
i.
ii.
592
80
i.
ii.
5!)
ii.
348
i.
180
02
ii.
Corporation
of,
Wilson
ii. 324
Sutton v. Earl of Scarborough
v.
i.
147, 175.
tv. Stone
23S
ii.
420.
i.
105,
ii.
418
Swannock v. Lyfford
Sweet v. Anderson
v.
Partridge
Southcote
v.
Young
v.
Sweetapple
Swift
v.
408, 410
l.
ii.
i.
171.
ii.
Bindon
i.
ii.
Sydebotham
v.
Hastings
Da Costa
The
v.
ii.
ii.
i.
ii.
v.
Tweed
468
193
587
394
501,
ii.
Countess
Burre
Symondons
258
205
290
182, 1>3
ii,
Sylva v.
Syniance v. Tattam
Symes, exparte
i. 173.
Symonds
35
354, 443
ii.
Swift
v.
Sykes
v.
i.
51.
i.
ii.
i.
ii.
Streatfield v. Streatfield
408
525,535
ii. 480
ii.
Coldtield,
07, 110
i.
(i3
ii.
i.
v.Jones
Sutton
Case
543
i. 80
ii.
Stnalley
v.
I(i5
i.
Brady
Thorpe
Lowson
Surtees, exparte
Sutton, exparte
ii.
v.
Howard
331, 437.
i.
Stouehouse v. Stouehouse
Stone's Case
Storke v. Storke
Story v. Lord Windsor
Strahan
Strange
v.
221
v. Tnffin
JStonehenge v. Evelyn
Sumner
290
324
425
ii. 473
ii. 323
ii. 20
v !>
ii.229, 232
v.
i.
ii.
Sturgis v. (oil.
i. 379
i. 79, 309
Sturt v. Mellish
Styles v. Cowper
i. '293
Sutfolk, Earl of, v. Green
i. 155
i.
Bailey
Stockley
f>47
Pan
I.
ii.
21!).
ii.
Attorney General
v.
v.
TingcomLe
v.
99, 100
Si iles, ex parte
420
i.
217,
i.
ii.
Stint
327
ii.
V.
Study
i.
524
de
2<1
305
T.
Tabor
Grover
i. 414
Taggartv, Taggart
i. 52, 54
Tait, exparte
ii. 4(:4
v. Lord Northwiek
i. 475,
470, 488. ii. 384
Tamworth v. Lord Ferrers ii. 119
Taner v. hie
ii. 419
Tanfield v. Davenport
i. 385
Tankerville, Lord, v. Fawcet i. 478
Tanner v, Wise
i.
104
Tappen v. Norman
ii. 223, 317
Tarbuck v. Marbury
i. 431
v.
NAMES OF
Ixxxii
CASES.
Vol. Pase.
Vol. Pas*.
472 Thomas v.
ii. 279
v. Hilhert
v. Bennet
i. 403
i. 292. ii.37
'
Tat ton v. Molineux
v. Britwell
i. 307
i.483
Tawney v. Crowther
i. 298
v. Davis
ii. 378
Taylor's Case
v. Daw kins
11. 522, 524
ii. 192, 379
'
v. Freeman i. 434, 435
v. Allen
i. 131
v. Atwood
v. Hodson
ii. 345
i. 518
i. 208
v. Ketteriche
v. Beech
i. 519
v. Llewellyn
v. Bouchier
ii. 438
ii.271
v. Field
v. Oakley
i. 77, 112.
i. 121
v. Thomas
ii. 4C2, 462, 464
i. 251
v. Haylin
i.
ii. 205
82 Thompson's Case
i. 228
exparte
v. Hawlins
ii. 459
v. Johnson
ii. 71
v. Attfield
i. 41
221
i. 208
v. Jones
i. 218,
v. Harrison
i. 31
v. Jones
ii. 158
v. Knight
v. Leitch
ii. 186
v. Stanhope
i. 125
ii. 435
v. Lambe
ii. 293, 394
v. Lewis
26(5,
i. 325
ii. 211,
v. Milner
v. Thompson
ii. 437
267
i. 290
i. 495, 496
Neville
v. Towne
ii, 314
v. Tooke
Pophatn i. 35. ii. 347,
ii. 440
433
v. Waller
409
ii. 470
exparte
v. Sharpe
v
ii. 99 Thorn v. Watkins
v. Taylor
i. 157
i. 43
Thome v. Pitt
ii. 399, 401
v. Wheeler
ii 272
Thornhill v. Evans
i. 214, 427
v. Wrench
ii. 38
Thornton v. Dallas
ii. 544
Teacoek v. Falkener
v. Dixon
ii. 103
Temple v. Bank of England
ii. 109
174
v. Hawley
ii. 152,
v. Rouse
ii. 459
ii. 400
Thorpe, ex parte
ii. 490
i. 267
v. Goodhall
Tenham, Lady, v. Barret
- Lord, v. Herbert
i, 136,
ii. 275
Thurston v. De Chair
tm
i. 211
140, 267 Thyne v. Thyne
437 Til lot* on v. Ganson
ii. 280
Tennet v. Bishop
ii. 560
Tinney v. Tinney
ii. 47
Tenniliteaw, exparte
ii. 426
Tipping v. Tipping i, 501,506
Teneur v. Tenour
i. 506
Tirrell's, Lady, Case
i. 24
Terresey v. Gory
i, 268
Tittenson v. Peat
i. 82, 234,
Terry v. Terry
ii. 252
Tewv. Earl of Winterton i. 472,
i. 115
489, 490, 491. ii. 291 Toby v. Molyns
i. 350. ii. 229
Texier v. Margravine of Anspach Todd v. Gee
Tate
v.
Austin
i.
'
i.
"lhanet
Tharpe
v.
v.
Paterson
Tharpe
i.
ii.
172 Toliett
143
192 Tolson
v.
v.
v.
Fletcher
Toilet
Collins
i.
i.
362
NAMES OF
CASES.
Vol. Page.
Tomliiison
v. Gill
ii.
Tongsma v. Pfiel
Took v. Took
ii.
Tookev. Hastings
Topi in v. Stuart
i.
184
223
242
313
n.
.';->
Harrison
v.
Topping
ii,
ii.
394
ii. 37
i. 23
i. 515
Pi^ott
v.
i.
Totson v. Collins
Totty v. Nesbit
Touke
Lewen
v.
Toulinin
Price
v.
i.
22, 43.
138
ii.
Tourle v. Rand
Tourton v. Flower
Tourville
Naish
v.
Townshend
v.
v.
Ill
118
74, 75
ii. 122
i. 208
ii.
Ash
i.
Barber
Lowheld
Maiquis of,
groom
ii.
ji.
v.
..
i.
i.
i.
Challoner
v.
Tucktield
ii.
v.
v.
362
,
Lord,
Tracey, Vise*,
Trafford
v.
v.
v.
v.
Wvndham
i. 218,
Hereford
Ash ton
Boehm
490
ii.
115,
i.
194
403
i.
i.
317, 318.
124
583
547
374
v.
Lord Stafford
Trebec
v. Keith
Treblecock's Case
Trefusis v. Clinton
Trelawney v. Williams
i.
i.
ii.
i.
3-tO
ii.
i.
Trender, exparte
i.
255
05, 120
i. 50
ii. 409
ii.
ii.
15
19
383
239
307
208
348
307
ii.
ii.
Tremaine v. Tremaine
Trenchard v. Wauley
Treney v. Hanning
Trent v. Hanning
Trevannion v. Moss
Treves v. Townshend
Trevor v. Trevor
Trig well, expaite
101
374
i.
(i0
ii.
497, 499
i.
92
427
Troughtorj v. Gittey ii. 491, 535
Tristham v. Melhuioh
i. 33G
i. 309
Tritton v. Foote
Trouliton v. Trouyhton i. 424
495
i. 258
Tucker v. Phipps
v. Tim rstan
i. 41G
v. Wilson
i. 419
ii.
House
Trinity
420
228
434
475
307
250
i.
Vol. Page.
Trimblestown v. Colt
Trimmer v. Bayoe
v.
v.
i.20O
i. 58
380, 387
v.
v.
Tullit
Tully
v.
Tuck
v.
Tally
Houlditch
Tullit
ii.
Buller
Auson
v. Samvne
Tudway v. Bourne
Tuffnel v. Page
Tudor
79, 80.
Ryal
i.
ii,
540,
i.
ii.
57
45
120
ii.32
Tupper, exparte
Turing, exparte
Turner, exparte
542
i.
ii.
ii.
491
591
507, 52(5
ii.
's,
Sir
ii.
Twort
v.
v.
Tynt
v.
Dayreli
Twort
Tynt
Tyrconnel, Lord,
Ancaster
Tyrel v. Hope
v. Tyrrel
5 IS
434
i.121, 123
ii.
i.
Duke
i.
ii.
191
of
252,340
492,493
ii.
05, 71
NAMES OF
Ixxxw
CASES.
Vol. Pace.
Vol. Page.
Tyrrell's Case
355
i.
Verney
Underbill
v.
Ilorwocd
i.
59, 186,
213
Underwood
v.
v.
Unett
Hitchcoxi,21 8,295
Morris
n. 25
Wilkes
v.
ii. 42
and Cam-
Universities of Oxford
Upham,
Upton
303
432
476
ii.
Unwinv. Oliver
i.
exparte
ii.
Bassett
v.
491.
i.
384
ii. 87, 92
249. 250
i. 119
ii.
Urqhart
Urlin v.
King
Hudson
v.
Usbome
v.
Utterson
v.
Usborne
Mair
183, 229.
ii. 152, 225
ii. 367, 566
i.
v.
Vernon
Halfpenny
v.
Uvedale
v.
Uvedale
ii.
ii.
Lord,
Uxbridge,
Vaillant v.
v.
ii.
311
v.
Farrar
Thomas
Vennor, exparte
Vere v. Loveden
Vernon, exparte
v.
Vawdrey
i.
ii.
Wadeson
v.
113,
ii.
ii.
i.
viii.
v . Smith
i.
Whorwood
Pref.
44,
360
377, 379
ii.
Wake
14
30
514
27,
i.
314
27
i.
North
Moocato
v.
117
48
198
Wakeman v. Duchess of Rutland
ii. 142
Wakerell v. Delight
ii. 213
Wakelin v. Walthall
ii. 338
Walcotv. Hall
ii. 13, 504
v. Walker
i. 124
Waldo v. Caley
ii. 63, 375
Waldron v. Forrester
i. 361
Walker v. Burroughs
i. 221.
ii. 491
i. 180
v. Cooke
v. Denne
i. 290. ii. 109
v. Easterby
ii. 217,218
i. 12
v. Fauderheide
ii. 557
v. Frobisher
v. Jackson
i. 474, 475
v. Meager
i. 473
Wakefield
v.
v.
16
14,
287
45,
i.
Calcroft
W&gstaffe, exparte
v. Wagstaffe
140
560
1
ii.
Wad ley v.
Wafer
v.
i.
ii.
W.
v.
ii.
461
558
47
464
373
ii.
ii.
Wade v.Paget
ii.55
8,
i.
ii.
Fernandez
Longdate
v.
63, 321
i.
128
ii.
Vizard v.
Voguel, exparte
Vowles v. Young
v.
v.
v.
ii. 380
Tale v. Davenport
Vancouver v. Bliss
ii. 415, 416
Vandenanker v. Desborough
ii. 490
Vanderzee v. Aclom i.247, 248
v. Willis
i. 424, 429
Vane v. Lord Barnard
i. 116
v.Fletcher
i. 41
Vannison v. South Sea Company
ii. 167
Vann v. Bttmett
ii- 188, 206
v. Clarke
ii. 21, 22
Varnee's Case
i. 100
ii. 374
Vaughan v. Blake
i.
Vincent, exparte
Waite
232
81
47, 291, 314
i.
243
Villareal v. Lord Galway
ii. 40
Villers v. Beaumont
i. 325
Villiers v. Villiers
i. 51,408
Wake
ii.
290
ii.
54
423, 424
Staveland
Dodmead
Vernon v.
Vez v. Emery
354.
i.
ii.
Verney
Vernon
*- v.
221
i.
Lord Ferrers
v.
Macnamara
v.
v.
ii.
Child
i.
Nightingale
i.257
Preswicke ii. 336, 350
Shore i. 275. ii. 14, 17
i. 353.
Small wood
ii. 151
v.
Thomas
v.
Walker
v.
Wcatherall
Wingrield
v.
i.
ii. 316
302,362
i. 270
ii, 317
NAMKS Or CASE*
Vol. Pape.
Wall v. Busby
Wallace v. Pomfret
Waller v. Childs
ii.
ii.
291
502
v. Cox
i. 299
v. King
ii. 557
W alley v.Walley
ii. 12G
Wall is v. Hoclson
i. 518
v. Duke of Portland ii. 232
v. Thomas
ii. 374
Walpole, Lord, v. Lord Oxford
i.
i.295.
Walter v. Moody
Walters v. Taj lot
Waltham
i.
ii.
Brou nton
v.
ii.
394
189
Watts
v. St.
Paul
i.
Turner
Wardell v. Dent
v.
v.
2(14
ii.
4,
ii.
310
Morris
i. 202.
304, 375
Minor Canons of
ii.
Warden and
Morris
202.
364,375
ii. 510
Wardourv. Beresford
i. 259
Ware v. Horwood
i. 64
Waring v. Ward
i.499. ii. 24
Warmistry v. Tanfield
i. 437
Warner, exparte
i. 200
v. Baynes
i. 200
v. Conduit
ii. 245
v. North
ii. 549
v. Watkins i. 62. ii. 529
Warren, exparte
ii. 581
v. Stawell
ii. 153
v. Warren
ii. 33
Warrington, Lord, v. Booth i.4S4
Warter v.
i. 274
Warwick, exparte
ii. 510
, Countess of, v. Edwards
i. 291
v.
Warder, exparte
v.
Birch
v.
Duke
51, 53.
i.
v.
Low
of
land
Watt
414
Walton v. Hobbs
ii. 338
V. Walton
ii. 90
Walwyn v. Lee
i. 190. ii. 255
Wankford v. Wankford
i. 471
Warburton v. Warburton i. 404.
ii. 410
Ward v. Bradley
i. 54
Ward v. Kepple
ii. 434
v. Duke of
Northumberland
ii. 234
v. Periam
ii. 555
exparte
ii. 517, 518
Warwick
ii. 104
Waters v. Taylor
ii. 252
Watkins v. Lea
i. 3C8
Watkyns v. Watkynsi. 391. ii. 3;J4
Watson, exparte
ii. 469
L39
ii.
v.
<'
Pa^.
Vol
Warwick
Grove
v.
v.
Weatherall
41,45, 55,59
i.
Thomas
v.
.-{()(>
i.
Bullas
v.
91
i.
Ball
v.
204.
i.
X H
220
i.
Geering
i.
333.
ii.
Weavers Company
v.
i.
Rorke
v.
Earl
491
Hay ward
15, 10
i.
12(i
ii.
i.
227
140
i.
420
of Shaft sbury
134
540
v. Webb
i. 515. ii. 95
Webber v. Smith
i. 33
Websterv. Birch more
ii. 340
v. Bishop
ii. 557
Webster v. Hale
ii. 8,67, 68
-- v. Webster ii. 82, 85, 245
Weedon v. Fell
ii. 22, 287
Weeks v. Cole
ii. 219
v. Gore
i. 58, 470
ii.
Ward
v.
Staker
v.
ii.
Welby
ii.
v.
Duke
i.
of
i.
Wei ford
Beazely
v.
132
Rutland
135, 140
i.298
i.70
Wellings v. Cooper
Wells v. Corbvn
312
90
-- v. Price
i. 281
v. Wood
i). 290
Wenman's, Lord, Case
ii. 571
Wentworth v. De Virginy i. 326
West, exparte
ii. 10
v. Errissey
i. 51, 52, 54
v. Skipp i. 70, 77. ii. 40S,
495
ii. 384
v. Vincent
i
v.
Westly
Myddleton
v.
Clarke
Wetherell, exparte
ii.
i.
94,
ii.
i.
123
429
names of
Ixxxvi
cases.
Vol. Pa<rc.
Vol. Paa<.
313,511
Weymouth v. Boyer
i, 176
Whaley v. Norton i. 223. ii. 334
Whapnam v. Wingfield
i. 79
Wharam v. Broughton ii. 352,
"
363, 390, 404
Wharton v. May
i. 215
v. Wharton i. 41. ii.290
Whateley v. Kemp
i. 53
v. Smith
ii. 317
i. 346
Wheate v. Hall
148
188
v. Faussi ft
i. 23
Whitley v. Whitley
ii. 176
Whitmillv. Farrell
i. 288
Whit.nore, exparte
ii. 183
Whittey v. Price
i. 99
Whittingharn v. Burgoyne i. 228
Whittonv. Russell
i. 39, 253
Whitworth v. Davis
i. 172,
268
25, 27
24
143
Widmore v. Woodroffe
ii. 50
Wigg v. Tiler
ii. 566, 585
QT
- v. Wigwigg
ii. 103, 105
Wikes'sCase
i.364
Wilcox v. Drake
i.263
v. Wilcox i. 312. ii. 165
Wild v. Wills
i. 197
Wild man v. Wildman i. 382, 384,
We}- land
v.
Weyland
Wheeler, exparte
Wheldale
Bingham
v.
Caryl
v.
Newton
v.
Whitall
Partridge
ii.
i.
i.
Wicks
219, 221
303, 312
i.
i.
ii.
ii.
231
ii.
v.
i.
v.
v.
Whitelocke's Case
Whitfield, exparte
i.
35
290.
v.
Golding
Marshall
i.
ii.
v.
i.
fc
AMES OF
i.WWli
CASKS-
Vol. Page.
Vol. Paee.
Williams
v.
v.
Macuamara
v.
v.
Mellish
Sorrel
Springfield
v.
Williams
v.
Winyates
v.
lord Lonsdale
v.
i.
869
i.
119
411
436
i.
422
i.
ii.
ii.
inchester,Bishop
of, v. Foufriier
v.
Payne
ii.
150, 151
L421.
Knight
i.
71
v.
ii.
284
Wind
144
187
Windham
603, 538,
539, 540
ii.
\\
66, 115,
Wynne
Williamson, exparte
i.
i. 496
Clarke
v. Oodrington i. 41,
217, 326
ii. 20
Willing v. Baine
Willi ogham v. Joice i. 332, 333
v. Macintosh ii. 252
Willis, exparte
i. 431
Jekyll
v.
Win&or
v.
Hilton
v.
Winsor
v.
I.ifebury
ii.
81,
ii.
353
550
142, 143
ii.
v.
i. 301
Willoughbv i. 406,
408, 409
Williams v. Thompson
ii. 201
Wills v. Daw kins
i. 377
v. Puh
ii. 295
v. Slade
i. 200
v. Stradling
302,303
v.
Shorral
Willoughby
v.
Wilmot
v.
Woodhouse
ii.
Wilson, exparte
v.
v.
18.
i.
ii.
ii.
457
185
ii.
v. Dabbs
v. Dennison
Fielding
Foreman
v. Ginger
Grace
v. lvat
Pack
ii.
i.
373
196
313
300
v.
ii. 223
ii. 84,87
v.
i. 500
v. Pio-ott
i. 249
v.Spencer ii. 21, 22, 23
i.
ii.
'
"
Winchester, Bishop
of,
ii.
v.
Beavor
151, 200
291
ii. 91
i.
Atkinson
v.
v.
Whaley
Wood, exparte
W ood
T
v.
ii.
320
394
333
439
390
317
i.
Wilmington v. Foley
Winter v. Blount
WirdmarJ v. Kent
Wiseman v. Mason
Witts v. Campbell
i.
i.
ii.
i.
ii.
Downes
i.
378
ii.
v.
v.
Story
v.
-
70
Woodcock
Duke
v.
261
ii.
of Dorset
398
i.
11
i.254
v.
Wingfield
i.233.
38, 468
Boswell
Brownsmilh
55
Winged
ii.
Windham
v.
Woodcraft
v.
King
v.
May
v.
Kynastou
Burton
v.
i.
177.
ii.
12
Woodgate v. Fuller
Woodhouse v. Hoskins
v.
296
150
ii.
i.
258
ii.
200
i.
31)5
Shipley
23:J
i.
Woodman v. Blake
Woods v. Huntingford
i.
35
478,
i.
47!)
Woodward
v.
Gyles
King
Woolam v. Hearn
Woolaston v. Wright
-
i.
v.
33,
i.
38
181
ii.
321, 322
Woolbridge v. Hilton
Woollands v. Crowcher
389,390.
i.
147
ii.
5-30
i.
ii.
380 r
289
v, oolley v. Drag
42t;
Woolnough v. Woulnough i. 362
Wools v. Walley
SS
Woolstoncroft v. Long
254,256
Worgan v. Rvder
ii. 430
i.
i.
i.
NAMES OF
Jjtxxviii
CASES.
Vol. Page.
Vol. P;.?-.
Worge
v.
Bradley
Marlar
41-1
ii.
Wras:g, exparte
Wrayv. Williams
Wrea v. Kirton
Wren v. Kirton
Wright, exparte
v.
Atkins
v.
Bond
v.
Braine
v.
Cadogan
v.
Dannah
ii.
Hall
v.
Hunter
Mayer
Morley
408
ii.
196
ii. 380
500, 584
ii. 173
ii. 282
i.
ii.
v. Englefield
v.
575, 577
i.
i.
ii.
178
i.
373
i.335
374, 440
ii. 81
161, 190
Wych
v.
East
v.
Meal
Company
India
247
172
481
406
ii.
i.
Wydown's Case
Wynch
Wynn
ii.
Packington
v.
i.
Morgan
v.
i.249
Williams
Wynne, Dr. v. Bampton
v.
410
294
ii. 6
i.
i.
Hawkins
Lord Newborough
ii. 193,197
v.
v.
Y.
Yallop, exparte
Yate
v.
Yates
ii.
592
i.
v.
Boen
v.
Fettiplace
v.
Hambly
i.
ii.
21
Yea
ii.
102
74
344
ii.
Yallop
Bolland
v.
151,305
v.
Fou raker
383, 385,
v.
Frere
ii.
390
v.
Yea
ii.
4-32
v.
387.391
Nutt
i.290. ii. 336
Pearson
i. 357, 440
Felling
ii. 440
Proud
i. 102
v.
Rutter
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
i.
v.
Simpson
Wright
41
191
2,
i.
i.
434, 437.
Ill
ii.
Wrightson
Wrottesley
Hudson
v.
v.
Bendish
i.
ii.
260
ii.246"
i.
i.
Mayor
of,
v.
i.
Young
v.
Peachy
91
Pilkington
136, 137, 160
Clarke
v.
19
Mac-
v.
kenzie
386, 389.
i.
ii.
v.
302
ii.
i.
i.
323
243, 245.
98
410
290
ii.
Keighly
_. v. Walter
v.
i.
77. ii.
i. 65,
261,
262, 207
Wybourne
v.
Ross
ii.
546
Zouch
v.
Woolston
i.
45
TREATISE,
Sfc.
\ LL
II.
III.
IV.
VOL.
I.
COMMON LAW
JTT
U ISB2CT SCN
CHA
TJH&
CHANCELLOR.
^pHE
Chancellor
is,
He
is
in-
a privy
books
1
He
*.
See 38
EdwT
13Edw. 4.3.
is also,
3. 3.
annum
in
under the
the King's*
and
11 Hen. 4. 80.
F, N. B. 83 K. 4to ed. It appears from the Rolls of Parliament in the time of Edw. 3.
that it had previously been
the usage for the Chancelgive all the King's
lors to
livings, taxed (by the subsidy
assessments) at twenty marks,
or under, to the clerks, tcho
were then actually cleri or
clergymen, who had long laboured in the court of Chancery ; but that the Bishop of
Lincoln, when he was chancellor, had given such livings
to his own and other clerks,
contrary to the pleasure of the
King and the ancient usage ;
andthereforeit was recommend*
a con-
ed to the King by the Counto command the Chancellor to give such livings only
to ihs clerks of Chanwy, the
Exchequer, and the other
or courts at
two benches
cil,
3,
OF THE CHANCELLOR.
Chancellor, and
kept
in
for
summoned by
is
all
by the
issued
writs
Chancery^^But
be treated
of,
common
the subject
the court of
These
Chancery.
kinds
I.
The Admission of
Such
who
in
as the Cursitors
are nominated,
Chancellor
*.
common law
2.
Officers
of the Court;
and Masters
in
Chancery ,
is
in respect of,
Bag
Office*
mon
William
year 1309,
de Becercoles, the Scottish
Chancellor, presented a petition to the Kinsj in Parliament,
praying that he might have
the gift
of all the Kind's
churches, us former Chancel*
lurs used to have
and this
prayer was granted, as to those
benefices which did not exceed ten pounds per annum.
Ryley's Placita, 613, 14. &c.
See also Prynne, quo*. Chal-
in the
mers
im.
b
aledonia,
Vid.
&c. p. 00.
B a
Vol.
I.
p.
Judicial Authority^
monstrans
dc droit*,
of petition.?,
of
traverses
scire
office,
and entered
turnable there,
All
in
the
personal
office, called
actions by- or
court
When, however,
the
Chancellor
a demurrer
cannot
try
it,
was ordered
may do
judgment
record
is
given
to be
and
it
is
is
The
into
can
Petty Bag
he
as
",
nojudgment
When
be brought
the
it
may
e.
Crown
is
tried
11
Court
is
letters
patent,
case, 8 Co.
4
1,
s>ee
Prime's
&c
."J.
13.
'
4 Inst. 80.
'
F THE CHANCELLOR.
seldom resorted
is
found
and that so
to,
in
be
little is to
has been
It
it.
mon law
com-
authority respects,
3.
made
to be
out
by the Cursitors,
wrks
are
such order
in
or
it
as the
The work
of
all
two hundred
ably
commented
upon
it
in
number,
most
has been
by litzherbert
in
his
the
commentary upon
it,
On
court
termed
account of
its
Chancery
of
the
forge
officina justitice
times, and
thus
issuing
of writs, the
process
in
and shop of
of
all
originals",
accessible
was
time
to the king's
subjects.
all
was always
The manner
in
to be thus
of
tlu*
to
relief,
"
used to be referred
UmUud's Archoon,
p 49.
and
Chancellor framed
a writ so as to
When
this
had been
much
which
it
ment
was required
to exercise
At
in
judg-
became
the Chan-
grew
to
very
much
was confided
to
the
and
increasing,
it
strict
observance
an
done but
found
in
to Parliament for a
new one
quiring
be found
falling
like
in
remedy,
right,
and
re-
no precedent of a writ
if
they cannot
CK THE CHANCr.I.LOR.
t*r;rec, it
shall be
shall
the
in
be framed by consent of
law, lest
it
happen
the
for
" with a
(somewhat
Blachstonc
sa\s
statute,
accuracy
little
'Chancers', and a
hastily)
the
of
the clerks
iut
lktle liberality
the judges,
in
all
the
defendants"
the
New
writs were
suance of
afterwards
this statute,
and attention
framed
in
pur-
quer v
The
1.
Common
writs, as
(where the
bench
sits;
custodier,
2.
p
q
Comment,
p. 50,1.
vi et
armis,
are,
same county
the
all
'208.
77.
Com. 3
vol. p. 51.
See Painenoticed,
v.
]
Sidney, Dvr
Sch. and Lcfr.
COMMON LAW
4.
rcai,
Writs
ot
JirtiKB vi laicd;
whether
JUIUSDICTIOS"
3.
6.
Common
the
in
Writs of replevin;
5.
and regularly
cept debt,
some
personal actions,
writs in
all
detinue,
covenant,
Some
all
Pleas;
pay a
original writs
ex-
account, and, in
1
.
king
fine to the
as
and persona]
actions, as in debt.
Many of the
now employed
enumerated
writs above
proceeding
for the
in
are
not
Ejectme7it y
tions"
is
so
much
common
use
Such
1
.
most
law
Applioriginal
executed by inferior
part,
sel-
u
.
T
Vid. " Discourse concerning the Courts of* King's
Bench and
Lord
Vol.
to
relate
consideration
oj/icina
relating
as
dom come
ac-
remains in
resorted to.
still
to the Chancellor
cations
that
writs, however,
real
of quare impedit
Common
Pleas,
Chief Justice
I.
Harg. Tracts,
by
Hale."
p. 3<i0.
ll
liar.
l
St-e ex
Atk. 770.
pa'rte
Vennor t 3
OF THE CHANCELLOR.
as
of
in the reign
part of the
transacted
business
.in
Henry
and
after
ing
statute,
in
the court of
there,
mon law
mains
to be
added on
this head,
detached remarks.
1.
common
right
though not
is
it is
found
to be
in Fitzherbert's
is
obtainable of
in the Register,
in tail
tail,
w
,
or
or hares /actus
for life*,
to
*,
as a devisee in fee, in
suppo-
sititious births.
The
'
See
Judicial
Authority,
&c,
Ex
P.
3^1.
See
ex
parte
Wallop,
2 Dick. 7(7.
Wax.
parte Aiscough,
592,
S,
C,
2
Mos.
* See the
ra>es mentiontioned by Mr. Cox in note (It
COMMON
10
LATV JURISDICTION
it
The
writ,
it
personal estate*;
of
it
power
it
If the
may
widow marry
issue
tody of the
again, yet
still
she
is
'.
writ
the
in
the cus-
remove from
his house,
and
The
first
writ
paritura; and
she
if
widow be with
d
;
where the
sheriff
time, free
people of
access
A supplicavit
court,
Ex
upon
Pleas,
(where the
to
that there
in that strict
is
no
man-
filed
is
articles
C. C. 98.
* See case
cited
in
p. 391.
b
Co. Lit. 8 b n. 3.
c
Cro. Jac. 685.
skill
to the
and quwndo
thorities),
ly
to
Common
child,
is
(in strictness)
is
on oath,
d
Mos.
(an afrirma-
Or THE CHANCELLOR.
do
not
tion will
11
,)
life
but
lat-
it
the peace h .
exceptions
were taken to
two justices
to
it
certificate,
but
in
also
end of
a year,
if
nothing
new happens,
dis-
ties'.
is
of the
the
abilities
will
not discharge
denying the
affidavit
facts,
but
vance appear,
ed
is
lessened'",
but the
a supplicavit on an
for
it
where
will
not
try
combination
court
affidavit
them on
or
contri-
III.
With
t
Ex parte Crumblcton,
2 At k. 70.
h
2 P.
Wavering's csfce,
Wins. "i02. As to the uutli-
rity
Bat/num
Ambl. 64.
'
334.
Ex
parte King,
Ambl.
',
it
Lui/iuim,
Ex
tlu-.-c
'
v.
parte
2-10. S. C.
Kiug Ambl.
57&
a
2 Vera.
F. N. 13.518.
12
Court of record,
it
where
that
in a
a certiorari,
Court of Chancery
or the
a replevin is
may be removed by
<l
Where
certiorari
the tenor,
returned,
if
record
is
to
nul
tiel
record
removed, whether
for in
when
and coun-
sufficient,
is
it
itself
no difference
is
the record
is
to be
be before judgment, or
after,
must be remov-
itself
ed
if
one be sued,
out of
its
it
in an inferior court,
may
mon law courts of Westminster-hall, or, as this
may happen in a vacation when only the Chancery
is open, that Court may be moved for a prohibiupon
tion",
the
fact
a petition',
arose
out
of
and
affidavit
But
if it
WoodB. 554.
N.
Kinaston, 2 Atk. :j17.
8. C. 1 Dick. 2:j3.
1
a.
2
13. 548, n.
F.
Atk. 318.
craft
v.
Kinasv.
Woodcraft
2 Atk. 318. Sarki 117.
ton,
1
The coctrine
writs
set forth at
as to
of prohibition is
large in F. N. B. 03. &c.
Hurris, 7 Yes.
254.
v
See
Atk.
51(5.
Hill
v.
Turner, 1
Newhouse
Mil-
v.
Walker
'
v.
Fanderheide,
Dick. 330.
x
505.
is
Iveson
"
which
and
the jurisdiction,
was refused".
that
Ik-
Wms,
-:><J
Anon.
I.
OF THE CHANCELLOR.
diction of
13
tlic
y
.
an inferior court
has pleaded
the defendant
after
lie to
there
for,
by
lies,
But
tion.
If a pro-
cause
sedeas
11
but the
inferior court
if
c
.
wrong person,
stration to a
resort
may be had
in
Bench
or
Common
Pleas*.
Court of Prize, or other inferior court, misconstrue their jurisdiction, it is, it seems, a ground
If a
of prohibition
r
"
'
;
1 P. Wms. 470.
Anon. 1 Vera. 301.
1 P. Wuis. 470.
Iveson
v.
Harris,
Yes. 254, 5.
c
Cox's case,
29,
P.
Wms.
incidental
Blackboroitgh
Wms.
v.
Davis,
43.
'
Arg. in the case of the
Danish ship Noysomhed, 7
Yes. 595.
is
P.
14
principal question,
the
to
ed
V. The
teste
corporations,
and
But
writs
same day
cursitors, the
all
in
it is
not so with
on which
it
on
tested
the
common
and the
preceding
teste-day
6th
of October, the
Michaelmas
before
n*n assumpsit
made
fused
Term,
be altered and
the motion
was
re-
h
.
A Horn cy
first
General k
though such
&e.
h
Price
1 P.
v.
Wms.
Robinson
Hundreds
437.
v.
Stevenson,
Ambl. 375.
2 Sal k. 504.
4
of,
London
k
court,
',
a writ
to
has
the judge
for instance.
Craule v. Craw'e,
170 and see what
Vern.
1
is
said
'
in
The
Vera. 175.
Rioters'
case, I
OF THE CHANCELLOR.
An
VIII.
15
on petition, be allowed
original, will
brought to reverse a
arises
also,
elapsed
far
that the
as
for a robbery,
suit
time
limited
if
of limitations
statute
be
re-
IX.
It
issued,
de
is
it
officio,
thing further to do in
But
this doctrine
Slender
where the
ra
Such permission,
11
it is
returned*
seems to be
It
may quash
does
a writ
nor before
it is
it*
would be by
turnable
where
it
it
seems,
was
re-
1
.
But
a writ
Anonymous,
1 P.
Wms.
411.
n
Anonymous, 3
P.
Wms.
314.
IP.
Wms.
412.
and
see
3 Lev. 347.
p
Osjver
59.
v.
Anonymous,
Atk.
'
Weaver's
Haywood.
Ambl.
237.
v.
\Vms 435.
Burrard,
P.
Lessee
Murray,
Company
y.
3G3.
of
Lawlor v.
Sch. and Left. 76.
COMMON LAW
16
An
JUIUSDICT 10>f
communicato capiendo
by a creditor
citation
moved
but
And
an inventory,
followed of course
it
significavit*.
a supersedeas to a writ
De
excommunicato
though
capiendo
cavit
upon the
appearing to
to exhibit
for a supersedeas,
equitable grounds
not
for
the
method
the
;
signiji-
to
but where an
ed
".
Jfa cursitor
the
writ
of an
be superseded
will
unless
it is
resealed
for
Ad
verbal,
may be superseded by
the
only
writ of error
is
it
and
and
original,
insufficiency in
the
equivalent required
d
,
it '.
According
cases
where
See as to
Edward Coke
in all those
man is excommunicated by the
f
to Sir
a
this
writ,
F.
The
Kinr;
v.
Blatch,
Rex
Smith
v. Sneller, 1
v.
Wilmer, 3 Atk,
Dowgate,
5 Ves. 113.
a
505.
\. B. 144.
Vem.
24.
294.
nbtd. p. 000.
700.
v.
W. 351.
Company v.
Weaver's
Hay ward, 3 Atk. 302. and see
1 P.
Exparte
12Co. 67.
tion."
Vernier,
3 Atk.
Prohibi-
title
OF THE CHANCELLOR.
Chancery directed
commanding him
*'.
to patents,
on an application
that
shall
to the Bishop,
him
X. With respect
to assail
17
it
Lord Chancellor
to the
to
it is
Crown ought
ther the
While
1st,
is
it
legal or not,
in
which
it
it
''
may be op-
Majesty; 2d,
The Chancellor
k
.
a patent for a
cautious
itself as
how
may
It
it
affixes the
Warden of
Great Seal to
the Fleet, as
it
for
enrolment
however,
if,
mistake,
the
new
enrolment was
by
7 EtUv. 4.
14. Boraine's
Caae,16Ves.346.
" Ex parte Ualv, Vern.
Scriv.499.
'lb.
Oxford
Universities
&
'
v.
Cambridge
I,
v
parte O'Reilev, 1 Ves.
Leighton's
case,
2 Vern. 174.
n
and
Ex
jun,113.
m Col.
599.
Richardson,
Ves. 70-).
VOL.
delayed
Ex
parte
Koops, G Ve>.
IS
induced
remit
to
their
when
last place
coroner
is
coronatore exone-
of his abode
extend so
the court
De
to issue
far as
another
by a majority of freeholders p
XII. A writ of R ep levin q may be obtained, not
merely where there has been a distress, as is generally imagined, but in all cases where a person
.
who
until
it
shall
fully taken
but
if
A. be in possession of goods
which B. claims
in
a property, Replevin
The court
will
not,
it
on motion, supersede a
is
made
s
.
not
of
is
Ex
parte
Beck,
Bro.
C. C. 578.
* 3 Atk. 184.
q For
the doctrine as to a
writ of Replevin, see F. N. B.
155.
In re. Wilson, 1 Schoales
I
it
will not
be
and
Lefr. 321.
320. Shannon
327.
s
v.
Shannon,
ib.
JV.
Ex parte
Sch. and Lefr.
n.
See as
B. 144.
to
this writ, F.
OF
CHANCELLOR.
TIIC
Bishop has
that the
refused
If)
admit of cau-
to
tion".
XIV. The
writ
Dc
homine replegiando
and returnable
may
join
suing out
in
supersedeable
plead fo
wife,
has
it
Two
writ
this
Chancery
in
in the
it,
on petition or motion,
a court of law".
in
an
is
persons
It
not
is
court where
returnable
it is
*.
husband
a
.
the
and noticed
if
person
is
office
conclusive on
a Melius inquirendum
may
b
.
it
found by
is
the party
Natura Brevium
in Fitzherbert's
issue
an
not to be
Crown, but
upon which, if
the
;
Crown is bound
XVI. Writs of Ne
the
tion, writs
of Certiorari, and by
way
of process,
or for the
where considered.
XVII. It has been observed in an able controversial work d said to be composed by Mr. Yorke,
,
Earl of Hardwicke e ),
(afterwards
Archbishop of York v.
,
I Vera. 119.
Treblecock's case, 1 Atk.
C33.
y
1
F. N. B. 66. F.
1 Atk. 683.
Atwood
3. c. 13.
and
see
&
3 Edw.
0.
c
Duplessis, 2
Exparte
Ves. 538. &c. and p. 555.
* Judicial authority of the
Master of the Rolls, p.* 83.
e
See
Bishop Hurd's
of Warburton,
;
is
c. 8.
Atwood, Free.
v.
Ch. 492.
P. 572.
Edw.
that there
36
C 2
Life
20
no one species of
on the
common
all
performed
and
it
much
said,
the
Rolls
controversy,
and
it
seems
Master of the
on the
of Chancery
The view,
mon
common
f
.
law jurisdiction
is
necessarily very
limited
of
it
as
of Chancery.
ticularize
Lloyd
It
and describe
v.
Scott,
in the court
2 Dick.
to par-
OF THE CHANCELLOR.
CHAP.
21
II.
TJY
generality of
the
the
older
writers,
is
de-
is
the
they
usually
distinguished from
others
der the
Equity
(except what
be
of the Chancellor
under
of hereafter)
treated
heads
Jurisdiction
the
which
will
following
2.
Account.
3.
Fraud.
4.
Infants.
5.
Specific
Performance of Agreements.
6. Trusts.
it
may
not
be very obvious
how
it
will
be found,
that,
of Equity.
See Lucas,
1. 3.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
I.
It is
now
is
according to
intended to be treated
ordinary
its
to,
that the
of,
but only
sense.
The Jurisdiction
to
VI I. and from
c
Student,
ports'
':
they appear
in the reign
s
of Henry
as
it
the
against in
tainly,
Germain
St.
as well
Relief.
reason
is,
without a
profert,
East
upon
India
d
c
Company
v.
p. 12.
P. 2.
Underwood v.Slaney,
Ch.
Cas, 77.
f
Toulmin
Mobsop
v.
to recover
3. c. 17.
at
v.
Price,
5 Ves.
238.
Eadon,
16
and see Glynn
Bank of England, 2 Ve>.
Ves. 430.;
v.
41.
And
tiff's
way.
Law,
wicke
quent Judges
m
;
though the
much
original
on retaining
still insist
Court of Equity
Law, no longer
also set
and
it.
this,
exists".
it,
surprize in subse-
is lost
burnt,
risdiction of the
is
lost, a
in
evidence at law
the original
up
a profert hie
to oyer of
must
either set
in
2 Atk.
61.
m See what
is said Exparte
Greenway,
Ves. 812, S13.
and in East India Company v.
Boddam, 9 Ves. 404.
See
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
21
he must
stant
brincr a bill to
Deed
If a
mand
arises,
relief.
or Instrument,
is lost,
unnecessary
an
man would
cannot be supposed a
only
but
e.
relief
bring a Bill
must be annexed
loss
for it
prayed
is
have
to
g.
sought,
for a
if
is
de-
title
an affidavit of the
be a Q-round of demurrer
cerns the
",
If the
it,
deed
would
lost conis
prayed
must be annexed.
filed, in
con-
very
the
v
not sufficient
is
money
but
it
thereon, and an
must
be, to be
affidavit
paid
must be
an-
nexed*.
And,
it
a Trial at
insists
Law
upon
it y .
2 Atk. 01.
Whitworth and (Moulding,
1 Eq. Abr. 14. & C. 2 P. Wms.
s
231. Whitchurch
P. Wins, 541.
Defendant
v.
Golding,
Rootham
Anst. 859.
w
Nicholson
Vern. 31(1.
*
Walmesley
v.
v.
v.
Dawson,
15
Pattison,
Child, 1 Ves.
Teresey v.
Gory,
344,5.
Finch, 301. Anon. 2 Freem.
71.
y Clavering
Clavering-.
v.
2 Ves. 233,
against accidents,
are, in
many
cases,
been in possession
a person has
therefore,
for a
supply
those circumstances,
all
Law deems
necessary to the
as Livery,
a Surrender
or formal
sion to be disturbed
Common
where
years,
Equity
been inclosed
has
will
presume
and
man
is
intitled
the remedy
length of time
very
difficult,
which
bills
solet.
The Court
where
a rent out of
law
and from
is
lost,
or
founded
upon the
far, as to
give
at law,
be set forth
to
at
relief,
payment of the
many kinds
to
tion only of
relief,
persons inter-
thrown open
Quit Rents*
become
all
And where
for thirty
the Inclosure to
And
but then
all
so as
the terre-tenants of
Lyford
Coward,
v.
Vern.
105.
'
Ibid.
Steward
516.
c
Silway
v.
v.
Bridger,2Vern.
Corapton, 1 Vern.
32.
d
Duke
of
Sir Francis
P. C. 368.
Bridgwater v.
Edwards, (} Bro.
Tomans' Ed. and
Eton College v.
Beauchamp, 1 Ch. Cas. 121. 1 Eq.
Abr. 32(B) and 3C4.
e
Holder v. Chamburgh, 3
P. Wms. 257; but see North v.
see
EQUITYJUIUSDICTION.
2(5
make
to
a compleat decree
remedy
at
to distrain,
also,
Law,
it
no
is
as
relief 5
as
will
it
and
if
Copyhold Lands
And
as
though, in
cannot be distinguished
of Bills
cases
to
is
ascertain
more
in-
Equity
is
it
and originally,
apprehended,
It relieves, for
money
at a certain
day
',
as in the
common
case of
Law.
lute at
f
Benson
v.
Baldwyn,
Atk.
lb.
172.
Duke
Strafford,
of Leeds v. Earl of
4 Vcs. 180.
of
83.
copyholds.
is
dispensed only in
him
into as
for,
good
seems,
it
27
with safety to
it
if
it
cannot put
a condition as if the
agreement
afterwards* or a compensation
may
made for
be done
but un-
it ";
less a full
same
situation, a
Court
would be
tion
irbitrary
tain,
and
one of which
voluntary composition
complied with
Where a
it is
creditor to remit
must be
strictly
inserted merely to
secure
where a
time cer-
In such case,
manner.
in a certain
is,
to be paid at a
is
penalty
is
ment
of the object
is
really incurred
of the bond
is
and
sued
will be granted,
for
and an
Cage
v.
such cases,
in
at law,
issue,
if
the penalty
an injunction
quantum
danuii-
1
.
Russell, 2 Ventr.
352. Descartott v. Denaet,
9 Mod. 22. Davis v. West, 12
Ves. 475. and see Wadeson v.
Caloraft, 10 Ves. 67. Hill and
Barclay. 18 Ves. 63.
" Sanders
v. Pope, 12 Ves.
v.
ler,
Sloman
Walter,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
28
been
It has
be a mortgage at
paid
5 per cent,
if
is
penalty
a.
the
is
re-
by paying the
if
by paying him
is,
cent, as
if it
position, however, in
Interest
at the time
full
5
.
This
on mortgage
have been,
at
that if
money be
if
Court of Equity
will consi-
unless there
where Interest
Interest"; but
is
x
of a penalty
Where
reserved at 5
is
because
this latter
re-
if
it
and
is
agreement,
for the
performance
Brown
Wms.
x
v.
Barkham, IP.
652.
Vern. 290. Hallifax and
Exercitations,
stances
for,
29
was granted
to
restrain an action
sum mention-
The
of Covenants
construction
Equity
as at
the same in
is
is
Equity.
At Law,
literally
performed
it
Covenant must be
in
Equity
',
is
it
strictly
and
sufficient if
far as
avoidable accident,
if
by
fraud,
parties, so
but
by
if
by un-
surprize,
or
from executing
interfere
the party
it
literally,
relief.
to, will
to a length that
became
in
in
now
much
restrained
chase of an estate,
if
money
it
is
the pur-
and
it is
;
but
in his
power, the
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
30
Court
will dispense
with the
of
because, as
was formerly
it
it
essence of the
contract
performance
strict
said,
but
it
is
it
m ay
not of
be of the
he
Lord Stanhopes
Bank Notes,
of Rent
and payment
made
a Bill
procuring
;
was
on the ground of
the great
time
in
it,
and
for
Grant)
sitting for
thority
him would be
to
assume a
legislative au-
Where
or aliens
it
void,
if
the Lessee
this
knovnwhat
shall
a
Eiton
G92, 3.
c
Bra; v.
Lyon,
after-
without Licence,
it
v.
made
a Forfeiture,
for
is
is
un-
Wafer
v,
112. quot.
~, Seal, 25th
e
.
Moccato, 9 Mod.
by Lord Chan, in
Sanders v. Pope,
If,
31
sell
payment of
But though
lieve against a
many
cases re-
is
no
e
y
diction
and
it
which goes
to restrain a legal
''.
payment,
Court of Equity
will
relieve
the
let
Relief,)
such cases
that the loss
it is
is
and will
',
for
in
certain,
by damages.
So, relief has been given against a Forfeiture,
And
to
'
in re-
where the
in a case
sum
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
32
as he
pair,
to
and
want of
it
ef-
if
rubious,
nor will
much
relief
be granted,
to
him n
Premises being
Tenant refuses
ply
the
if
given
to
com-
voluntary,
breach of a Covenant,
Lessee covenanted to
repair,
at
repair,
Law
for the
non-payment
on a
Court of
Bill filed
was given
Hack
v.
Leonard, 9 Mod.
90.
Hill
62.
"See
404.
Hill v.Barclay,
16 Ves.
that
decision 9
to
damage by
repair,
fire
ment of Rent,
fire
it
Tenant covenants
if a
and
but,
such case
would
If a
it
if
the premises
if
the Tenant in
Covenant be
pay a certain
Court
seems questionable.
some
or neglecting to do
it,
by
are destroyed
par-
it,
to
as
And where
Bond
and
is
Webber
tioned
Abr. 414.
Hase v. Groves, 3 Anst.
687. Holtzapffel v.
Baker,
l8Ves. 115. and see on this
r,
Belfour v. Weston,
I Durnf.
and East 310. and
me cases there mentioned.
u
Cutter v. Power,
T. R.
'
I,
Roy
v.
Duke
x
.
of Beaufort,
Ponsonby
v.
Adams,
Bro. P.
C. 417.
w
Benson v.. Gibson, 8 Atk.
395. Woodward v. Gyles, 2
Vein. Hi).
x
Benson v. Gibson, 3 Atk.
39G.
023.
VOL.
T. R. 708.
ton, cited
nomine
(ill).
in
considered as a Crime,
v. Smith, 2 Vera.
See 16 Vesi 406.
See Browne v. Quiltcr,
Steele
is
is
Court
103.
Ambl.
where there
in
ing".
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
34
If there be a
Covenant
in a
wkhout Licence
and a Trade
in Writing,
is
carried
on without such Licence, the Court will not relieve against an Ejectment. Nor would a Licence
to carry
Licence
on any Trade
as a general
y
.
by
give relief
but
if
or accident,
a
Cases of
on
by
own
his
this descrip-
it is
held under
is
renewable Leases
found necessary
by which
relieved
and
it
was
an Act of Parliament
to pass
the Tenant
is
d
,
on certain conditions
e
.
Where
rate of so
there
was a Lessee of
a Colliery at the
Macher
pital,
z
Bateman
v.
Murray,
History of
Covenant
in the
Lease to
Lord
4 Bio.
c
v.
C. C. 415.
443. etc.
work the
upon paying
Colliery,
Conditions
35
the Coal
for all
f
.
Precedents
before
an Estate vests,
literally
performed
i.
to
e.
must,
be
in
performed
general,
be
dent
Law
it
g
.
In
many
cases
it
unless the
',
to'
Where,
therefore, there
tion over in a
is
a conditional limita-
Money
or such as the
same situation
in the
performed"
'.
and
it is
as
sum
of
Where an
Smith
Estate
2 Bro.
Wheeler v. Whitall, 2
Freem. 9. Wallis v. Crimes,
1 Ch. Cas. 89. Woodman v.
Blake, 2Vern. 222. Bertie v.
Falkland, 2 Vein. 339.
Taylor v. Popham, 1 Bro.
220.
C. C. 1G8.
'
v.
Morris,
C. C. 311.
Popham
Vera.
"
'
83.
Bamfield,
Lord Falkland
v.
v.
Vern. 339.
Cary
v.
Bertie,
'.
2 Vern.
344.
k
'
D2
EQUITY JURISDICTION,
36
condition that
release
all
if
the
first
neglect to
to
viz.
Exe-
as
Months after
this was held
failure in not
be relievable
to
Nor
is
such
a condition
possible, even
never
It
arise,
illegal
or
is,
will
relieve "\
i.
e.
to
be performed
Court cannot
relieve against
in
or becomes, im-
is,
quent,
is
in
damages
for
LordA^^Mg-Zttfmexpressed
The Rule
dition subsequent
In
all
those
relieve".
If such condition
feited
Equity will
it,
is
is
unlawful
Cases
Equity relieves
p.
which a
in
Court of
effect
of the
Breach of a condition^ it depends upon the question whether compensation can be made; for in
k
Ves.341.
1
Cary
340. Craydon
18.
".
Vera.
Hicks, 2 Atk.
v. Bertie,
v.
"
Popham
v.
Bamfielcl,
Vern.S3.
Cary
v. Lord
1 Vern. 339. Co.
2 Bk Comm.
p
Falkland,
200.
Litt.
15(5. 7.
all
and
forfeited a Penalty,
can be
broken a condition
Equity
compensation
37
Hut
q.
compensa-
if
enforcing which
for
cannot be estimated,
Equity
will
the
forfeiture
relief is
relieve
denied
but not,
waste, though
against wilful
imposed,
is
r
it
it
seems,
admits of com-
pensation
bis
Tenant
own
or
for Life
if
makes
a Tenant
It
by Copy
cases of forfeiture of
If,
there-
than
affects to con-
Law
he may, they
Copyholds
without licence,
when
or to repair"; and
it
a greater Estate
as limita-
to
do
v
;
but
where a
suit, or service,
relief will
berefused
leases
x
.
Ambl. 514.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
S3
It is to
Penalties
mance,
their
be observed that
are inserted
this
in a case of non-perfor-
it
not-
The
against
however
this
ject will be
we come
may
its
may
power
Forfeitures; but
this sub-
to treat of Legacies*.
Members
paying a
call,
payment
it
and incur a
by non-
forfeiture
notice sent
though
it
Loans,
if
a Party fails to
not be relieved
in
make
Equity % and
ment
acci-
an
a Deposit, he canrelief in
application
such case
to Parlia-
b
.
* Howard v. Hopkins,
2
Atk. 371. Chiliiner v. Chilliner, 2 Ves. ,528. and see Hobson v. Trevor, 2 P. Wras, 191.
v,
Gyles,
y
2
Post.
Sparks
Water-works,
a
lb. 434.
* lb.
435.
been
filed
relief in a
fail
89
Court of Equity,
is
Law
c
.
it
which pre-
great case,
was resolved
it
Conveyance with
that, if a
by the King
power of Revocation
to Jamaica,
to revoke
Where a Man
period, to settle
has
in the
and he
is
it,
in
him
but
Man make
-<m election,
within a limited
it is
said,
is
some
more usual,
rupt
g
,
it
or dies h , these,
dents, in respect of
tion, to order a
it
Cli.
1
and Montague,
Ca. 68.
Eastwood
Wms.
617.
v.
Vinke, 2 P.
2 Pro.
Webb,
C. C. 80.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
40
Fee
but
if
Ap-
no Jurisdiction, on
the
there
prenticeship,
is
ground of accident,
the Apprentice Fee
of part of
to order a return
5
of a death
is
not that
species of Accident against which the Court re(unless in the cases just adverted to
lieves,
where the
Plaintiff
;)
but
Law,
and by an Injunction
occu-
who
pier,
Equity, an
Account of Mesne
Law and
was de :
Profits
Bill
in
k
.
against the
relieved
having been
in
stances'.
An
Administrator being
much more
houses, and
in
possession of several
as they
were de-
Debt on
was
in
Equity relieved
".
73.
Pulteney
Anon. V* Abr.
tit.
Con-
dition.
C. 78.
k
'
principles of the
v.
Warren, 6 Ves.
m Croffc
vil,
v.
2 Freeni.
Lindsey and
1,
C'ol-
41
we nowproc
respect
of,
II. Mistake.
Court of Equity
will not
supply ^Mistake in
nor rectify
it
different
tary
A
,
unless
it
Nor
Recovery,
in
c
.
is
in favor
of a Wife, or a legitimate
f
,
equal
Jurisdiction to
in
Wharton
Wharton, 2
Whenever Vernon
Vern. 3.
the last
is quoted, it is from
edition of that work, by Mr.
Raithby, which is rendered so
very valuable by his great industrv, research, and accuracy.
v.
b
Bell against Cundall, Aml>.
102.
c
Ash v. Rogle, 1 Vern. 307.
d
Pickering v. Keeling, 1 Ch.
Rep. 78. Bonham v. Newcombe, 2 Ventr. 305. Lee v.
Jlenley, 1 Vern. 37. contra,
"Watts v. Bui las, IP. Wms. 60;
but that case disapproved in
Goring v. Nash, 3 Atk. 188;
and
v.
see dictum in
Williamson
in
contracts
Contracts: so
see
part, p. 8.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
4-2
that
if
reduced into
rectified
By
proper proof,
"strong
is
h
,
And
it is
it
months, Equity
11
not en-
it is
will
compel the
to
Mortgage
this,
though,
Judgment
is
after
confessed
to a third person,
Conveyance
whose
And
made good
or Representatives
745.
1 Anst. 14.
43
was
the Surrender
limited
by the Custom,
good
foreclosed
ciple are
ties in
made
for the
in effect
and Costs, or to be
numerous q
Conveyances
But where
certain formali-
are required by
Act of Parlia-
it
instance,
as,
for
seems,
where
a Bill of Sale of a
collateral Security,
livered,
c. 60.
of the Registry, as
is
plied in Equity",
it
under the party's own act and contract, not executed in the terms of the Statute, than he could
reform an Annuity Deed, not according to the
Annuity Act
l
.
p Taylor
and Wheeler, 2
Vern. 564. S. C. Salk. 449.
q See
Dale and Smithwick,
2 Vern. 150.
r
See what is said iaTouliain
v. Price, 5 Ves. 240.
'
Hibbert against Rolles-
EQUITY JURISDICTION".
41
Mistakes
in
them
where
and hemistakcs
the
Man
for
a general
it is
mode of so doing,
yet, if the
valid, in point
as
and the
deed take
man makes
heirs,
by law
effect, if
it
as
where a
relation
and his
can":
feoffment to his
seisin, it
is
it
by
want of that
for
he cannot do so
operate as a covenant
to
stand
seised,
it
shall
by the
passes by the
Common Law,
the party,
magisvaleat
lit
res
A. and
to
his
if
a Trust of
x
;
but
it
Lands be limited
is
void
nor will
operate as an Appointment
it
be allowed to
z
,
and upon
The leading
case
on
this
Crossing v. Scudamore,
Franklin v.
137.
1 Ventr.
Franklin^. T. 7 Geo. 1 1. 1733.
head
?VISS.
is
x
Habergham against Vincent, 4 Bro. C. C. ISS2.
Y.
Wagstaff
Wms.
I
v.
Wagstaff,
258.
Gooday
v.
Butcher, 9 Ves.
which
If a
more
will be
Power is executed
tion,
Where
in
it
in the
It
to
Man
or
would be
if
c
.
be executed
Writing, in
and
',
was executed,
in consideration
of Marriage,
tive execution
was supplied
So, where a
to settle
on a wife,
clear of taxes
afterwards
and
made
they should
covenanted to
fall
reprizes,
settle
100 a
year,
it
if
the party
it
Generally,
it
is
394.
j-3.
was
f
,
Non-Executnm
though
a defectivi
lb. 024.
in
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
46
Execution may.
thing
done; a
is
Power
is
execute
it
it,
is
sufficiently de-
an execution of the
is
supplied in Equity*.
As
commence,
relief has
is,
a third person
yet
Power,
is
8r
tion of a Power,
;
been given
Non-Execuwould go to
to
that the
the execution
of
Trustee, will
not be per1
those objects'
case of the
phin
Duke
are not
it,
of Marlborough
v.
Lord Godol-
'.
of younger
Purchasers, or Creditors*
f
Shannon
v. Bradstreet,
and
in
the case
of a
Wife or
Child
it
turing
particularly,
Covenant
is
Covenant
is
where a power
made
is
it
a sufficient declaration of an
it is
before
power
arises,
limited to be exercised
as
by Tenant
was volun-
provision
Powers
that a
47
in all those
n
.
is
no more
cute
it;
but
if all
it
Where,
defectively executed
and
by
a Will,
if
the children
379.
Coventry
v.
Coventry,
EQUITY JURISDICTION".
48
to their
'.
in Tail,
if
ma
under
Leases
the
Statute,
admit of
relief in
Equity.
Common
Manq ."
is
nothing
in these
Power be granted
valuable consideration,
it
for a
of form
re-
it
There
Recoverv.
more
a point
1".
Mistakes
in the execution
been endeavoured
construction of
to
be remedied by a peculiar
ills
But
powers by Will
affect-
o?Cy-pres does
under a power to
this doctrine
If,
Child
for Life,
see Campbell
Ambl. 740.
and
s
Koutledge
v.
v.
is
Leach,
Dorriel,
dered
is
void
but
remainder
this
and
unappointed
as
49
to
is
not consi-
go accordingly,
it
Power
as
possible,
as taking an Estate-tail
much
approved, and has gone, Lord Kenyon observes, " to the utmost verge of the Law";" and
said, "
it is
step further*/'
Where
there
is
an excess in an Appointment
but
is
in
is
In a case,
where the Power was to appoint to Chilan appointment was made to a Child
dren, and
Life,"
and
no Wife or Children
Power
Life was held
of the
for
therefore,
for
if
Wife and
he should have
death, to an
at his
the appointment
to the
object
Child
after his
Brudenell
v.
Elwes, 7 Ves.
C. C.
382.
451.
Brudenell
300.
v.
Elwes, 7 Ves.
,'
(.81.
VOL.
I.
50
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
there be a
if
power
if
the Son
left
a
.
this
is
limits of the
Power b
w^on which
If a Settlement
riage, purporting
it is
founded
to be, in
though
it
rec-
tify
nor
is
6
:
taken
such and
such
Words
veyance
is
Articles
in
;
are
Crompe
v.
Barrow, 4 Ves.
681.
d
e
Randal
273
123. S. C.
on sarne principle.
c
Randal v. Willis, 5 Ves.
262.
'
v. Willis,
? Brudenell
390.
5 Ves.
v.
Elwes, 7Ves.
them
',
such an Estate-tail
as
51
Father alone, during the coverture, or the Surviving Parent afterwards, to bar the issue of the
Marriage under a
legal
and order a
strict
Settlement
the Issue
unless
it
is
to the Heirs,
&c.
the Articles
in
lent in a Settlement
made
after
by an equiva-
Marriage
or from
or
The
general
of Equity
cles
it
the dis-
into
interpose
to
Courts
Marriage Arti-
carry
way
execution by
upon which
principle
of strict
Settle-
made
in
in that
manner,
consideration
of
is, that.
and
Articles
previous
to
length
to
according
be afterwards
to
622
2 Atk. 7:3.
'StreatBeld v. Streatfield,
Cas. Temp. Talb. 170. Jones v.
Langhton, 1 Eq. Abr. 392.
Nandick
v. Wilkes,
1 Eq.
Abr. 393. C. 5. Gilb. Rep.
114. Bask v. Dalway, 3 Atk.
531.
Villiers,
"
Chambers
v.
Chambers,
at
the
drawn out
Glanville v. Payne,
40. S. C. Barn. 18.
m Chambers v.
Fitz. 127.
Howell
v.
2 Atk.
Chambers,
Fearne on Contingent Remainders, 108. West and Erissey,2P. Wms. 349. Warwick
v.
Warwick and Kniveton,
3 Atk. 291. Pritchard agaiust
Quinchant, Ambl. 148. Cardwell v. Mackrill,
r
Cardwell
Ambl. 515.
Ambl. 515.
v.
Mackrill,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
52
tlements
p
,
the marriage
is
for
the issue of
and consequently a
which end,
it
it
in
the power
The
Purchasers
under the
r
,
Settlement are
made
both
if
before
Mar-
pressed to be
made
in
Court
Taggartv. Taggart,
1 Sch.
87. and see 2 Atk.
545. 5 Ves. 275.
and
q
and
1-efr.
Fearne on Remainders, p.
when
it
said to be
is
room
articles, all
for
But there
cluded*.
made
in
53
articles,
pursuance of the
such a supposition
is
pre-
is
be carried into a
to
a legal Estatel
settlement
strict
from the husband, the settlement must be accordingly; because in such case it is not in the power
bar the issue,
band takes no
Estate-tail,
it
wards.
And
doing
jointly
it
it
viri,
after-
it
is
with the probable view and intent of the settlement \ But this doctrine does not, it seems, apply to copy ho Id estates; for the stat. of
Where,
issue
8. c. 28.
in articles,
it is
II.
to tliem
w
.
Hen.
do not extend
Warrick
v.
Warrick, 3 Atk.
294.
u
Fearne on Remainders, 94.
and see Highway against Ban-
VOL.
I.
ner, 1
deuell
lienor
Honor,
P.
m*.
477. S. C. 3 P. ^
w
See Mr Butler's
Not
to
E 3
X.
to last Edition.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
54
terest
it
Tenants
and
would be limited
Common,
in
it is
only a
if
Common
to
in Tail with
it is
if
Estate
it
if the
in
Issue
y
.
after
mainder
to
that such a
Body must
it
to
mean
Re-
male of the
them
to a provision in
An
cles,
elder daughter,
is,
in the
execution of
arti-
accounted
ed on
'
articles
but there
is
Where
stand in
loco
term
after an estate-tail,
was placed
rectified
who
the
a
mistake
See Heneage
2 Atk. 457.
c
.
v.
before,
So
Hunloeke,
b
Hall against Hewer, Ambl.
204.
c
Uvedale v. Halfpenny, 2
P.Wins. 151. adopted in Heneage v. Hunlocke, 2 Atk. 45.
andsee 2 Yes. 334.
55
A
.
a'
unequivocal, intention
to pass a
Copyhold, ora
;)
use of his
if
will, the
Court
make
ditors
',
a Wife',
Children
11
a Surrender to the
will
is
in
favour of Cre1
Legatee , or
Chari-
ty'";
children
or of illegitimate Children
of the Testator'
The
',
principle on
Grand-
or a Sister
which
is
relief
man
to
d
Payne v. Collier, 1 Ves.
Juu. 171. Doran v. Ross, 1 Ves.
Jun. 51). S. C. 3 Bro. G. C. 28.
Kightley v. Kightley, 2 Ves.
Jun. 332.
See IMarston againstGowan,
3 Bro. C. C. 170.
1
"Cook
Wms. 287.
h
Car
v.
v.
Arnham, 3
Ellison, 3
P.
Atk. 77.
expressed in 2
Freem. 65. has been long over-
The
doubt
ruled.
182.
it
it
did.
k
2 Vem. 1J2.
in
discharge of natural or
'
Palmer
v.
Palmer, 2 Dick*
534.
P.
n
Wms.
08.
Ambl. 573.
Att. Gen.
against Downing.
As to grand-children, see
Kettle and Townshend, I Salk.
187. S. C. reversed in House
of Lords, Show. P. C. but this
reversal disapproved. See Hills
v. Downton, 5 Ves. 505. Watts
v. liullas, 1 P. Wins. Gl. and
note, and see Chapman against
Cibson, 3 Bro. 231. but adhered to by Lord Eldou in Perry v. Whitehead,
Ves. 544.
and see 2 Ves. 582. Elton v.
Elton, 3 Atk. 508. Goodwin
and Goodwin, 1 Ves. 228.
p Cricket v. Dolbv, 3 Ves,
12.
<
1 Ves. 128.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
60
will operate
make him
r
.
The
upon
perfect
arisen out of
cisions
Eliz. c. 4.
At
first,
it
payment of
debts,
If,
and they
therefore, Free-
will,
Copyhold
notwithstanding the
rateably with,
Chapman
of the
express intention
against Gibson,
But this
v.
Tarrant,
edition of
C. C. 325.
Bro.
is
be understood of the
must be remembered
it
that an
surrender
supplied
in
without
devise
for not
Though
for
equitable Estate
0<
x
.
favor of a
Widow,
younger children,
or
Copyhold Estate
otherwise
hold
is
in
is
will,
wanted
in the devise,
and the
if the
want of
the
for debts,
used
in the
Copy-
Surren-
if
tene-
ments,
z
.
Deed or
who are un-
in favor of
provided
for,
ger
w
C.
for
it
the heir,
'',)
being unimportant, by
482.
Monntfort,
v. Poulton,
Gibson
C.
lee
by the
(unless
made
younger children,
Hawkins
v.
Lord
King
*
1G4
Via. Drake
v.
Robinson,
whom
or
how he
is
Cooke
v.
Arnham, For
in
Cooke v.
16 Ves.
MS.
under
Arnold, Gain
title
v.
and
of
Gam,
208. Chapman
Gibson, 3 Bro. C. C 230.
v.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
iS
many
way
d
;
will
must
there
seems,
it
be
6
;
f
,
must
it
the Bill
filed
is
'':
when
younger
heir,
a surrender in favor
unprovided
k
But
for'.
but a child
of a wife,
is
this doctrine as to
perhaps, a grand-child
heir in blood, but not hares actus m
,
or,
to an
Copyhold
to one, with-
have been
there
will not be
surrender
A surrender
will in
some
cases be supplied in
as in a
case of Gavel-
c
Pike against White, 3 Bro.
C. C. 288.
d
Hawkins v. Leigh, I Atk.
380.; but see 3 Atk. 183.
e
Cooke v. Arnham, 3 P.
Wms. 283. S.C.MS. Burton v.
Floyd, 6 Vin. 50. pi. 20.
' lb.
and see Chapman v.
Gibson, 3 Bro. C. C. 229.
g
See Hills y.Downton, 5 Ves.
Fielding v. Winwood,
557.
10 Ves. 92. Tudor v. Anson,
2 Ves. 582.; but see Lord Alvaidey's remarks on Hills and
380.
v.
Cart-
Gilfc.
59.
p.
k
Chapman
v.
Gibson, 3 Bro.
C. C. 230.
'
Rogers
v.
Marshall. 17 Ves.
297.
"'
Smith
v.
Baker,
Atk.
59
of the will
the intent
Where
a Surrender
is
account will aho be directed of the rents and profrom the time the copyhold estates are held
fits
for,
infant
costs
r
.
and has
rectified
new bond
and, in
it
it
8
;
shall be
cases
be made accordingly
though
tended to
Bradley
it
be both joint
v.
Bradley, 2 Vera.
P.
Wms.
Kidney
GO.
v.
of
being supposed
joi
only,
and several'.
Banks
v.
587. S. C.
'Simpson
shall
in
these
was
in-
Parole
v.
Vauehan.2 Atk.
33.
Coussmaker,
12 Ves. 158.
* Cook v. Arnha.n,3
P. Wms.
288. in note l;and S. C. MS,
'
Uoderhill
10 Ves. 227,8.
and Horwood,
EQUITV JURISDICTION.
60
evidence
taken
current intention of
served,
it
It has
parties
all
must be strong
that
words
to the con-
irrefragable evidence
w
.
to the law,
is
As where an Annuity
mi
tained
by the
parties
it
it
if
to
open an account,
w
.
two persons
bound
are
in a joint obliga-
Law, he does
version in fee
his
own
use,
first
fee.
life,
tail,
he was advised
buy the
to
re-
life,
He
"
Shelburne
Bro.
v.
Inchiquin,
C. C. 341, 344.
'Lord Imham againstChild,
1 Bro. C. C. 92. and see Lord
Portmore against Morris, 2 Bro.
C. C. 290.
1
This transaction
w
Langstaff
Ves. 400.
x
IJ
387,
arm an
v.
v.
Fenwiek, 10
Camra, 4 Via.
that
brought his
relieved,
for
the lord,
in
A.
tected
pi
the freehold
Q{
bill
be
to
under a mistake
interest,
There
Pay
principal,
."
are,
case
it
was
the
said that,
Law
maxim
on Ignorance of
acts founded
was
and
one
in
" ignorantia
in
not mistake
is
b
,
and Relief,
it is
and takes a
life
If, for
which he paid
off,
it
as
subsisting debt;
or
a tenant for
if
improvements
life,
estate,
it
by
such
the freehold.
Nor
will
Mistakes
of
Judgment
be
D
relieved
'Mildmay v. Hungerford,
2 Vem. 243.
See Lansdowne v. Tansriowne, Mos. ant.
Pusey v.
Mos.
'
'
Lansdowne
oM>4.
5 Ves. 14.
v.
Lansdowne,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
62
Agreement or Composition of a
cause be made, the Court will not, upon the quesIf an
against.
tion
is in
overturn
their eyes
And where
.'with
for a valuable
consideration',
been a purchaser
But
Agreements
in general,
personal estate,
if
relating to real or
As where
a person entitled
tate of an intestate,
and
a value,
it
the
is
of such
share
is
of
which,
JB.,
apprehended he had a
And in
c
such cases,
Browne
v.
Pring,
Ves.
8.
Frank
v.
Frank,
Stupilton
v.
Ch. Cas.
Stapilton,
Atk. 10.
c
seems, a Mistake
Corking and
who
may be
Pratt, 1 Ves.
Sen. 400.
408.
84.
Warner
v.
Wtfkins, 2 Atk.
Bingham
1 Ves. 120.
v.
Bingham,
of,
a long acquiescence
it
nei-
'.
executor,
who
had been
away
it
It afterwards
ditors.
bill
afti c
ple:
but not
.)
satisfied in
to histestator's cre-
for this
relief
to
be relieved
was decreed,
al-
whom
nature, doubtful,
rt
parties
fact
its
at
time
the
unknown
to
of the
both parties,
relief.
As where
there to be a
knew B. was
*
in
knowing
P.
125.
Nicholls
if A.
East v. Thornbcrry, 3
Wow.
'
Mine
Pooleyand Ray,
P.Wmfc
354.
v.
573.
Vaughao
1 Bro. 550 f
Leeson, 3 Atk.
v.
Thomas,
equity jurisdiction.
0*4
seems,
it
considering
mine,
the
aside m .
it
It is
such
a transaction,
not only
the
which brings
it
it
party to
arise
make
up by mistake, and
to ignorance of a transaction
have made
it
discovery";
the
to a case offraud.
If instruments be delivered
owing
great advantage
that a
must
the
which would
Equity
mispleading
proper time
in
but
if
move
Law,
for a
as
new
Law,
a plaintiff, at
the defendant,
and the
own book
and
Law would
not, in
trial*.
v.
Mackreath, 2 Bro.
C. C. 420.
n
lb.
Bateman
v.
Willoe, 1 Sch.
andLetr. 201.
* Countess of
Gainsborough
v. Clifford, 2 P.Wnis. 426.;but
see Barbone v. Trent, 1 Vern,
176.
'
See Marriott
7 T. R. 209.
v.
Hampton,
Go
was
and
relieved,
perpetual in-
such as
was examinable
holden that,
whose
in
may be
Equity
Law,
the award
but
if
a question oi
is
wrong
his
in
x
,
to set
Law be
aside
expressly
though the
arbitra-
make
or in the Fact",
made
is
filed
has been
it
if
Law
in Equity, as well as at
if it
y
:
ference to arbitration,
pending
by
parties
in
a suit, de-
in the
order of a Court of
of the statute
Blackball
Wms.
"
v.
a
,
Combs, 2 P.
GO.
Kent
and
Bridgmau,
S.
C. l'ree. Ch.
233.
w
Ridout
v.
Payne, 3 Atk.
see also
VOL.
I.
Ching v. Ching,
(j
Ves,
282.
'
2 Atk. 494.
9 and 10
Wm.
3. c. 15,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
66
from bringing a
trator,
bill in
With
to be restrained
is
allowed
it
seems, would be
respect to
be observed that
if
but
it
may
an account be settled,
If one
cases of Mistake''.
relief
here
and a
mav be
6
.
Equity.
in
As where
Evidence as to
5.
strable mistake;
scope of the
will,
thing to be proved
b
a clear,
is,
that there
f
265
but see Browne and
Browne, 1 Vern. 158.
c
See Lingood v. Croucher,
2 Atk. 390, 7; but see ib. p.
;
506.
d
See tit. Account, post.
East India
Company
Neave, 5 Ves. 173.
v.
is
is
is
not
demon-
a clear mis-
to
be had to
is
but the
a mistake
first
h
.
h
See Kidout v. Dowding,
Atk. 419. Mellish and Mel-
listh,
4 Ves. 47.
Where
a Testator
by
his Will
61
gave legacies to
in
were dead
was held that the
and that they were entitled
the
legatees
true, it
proof of identity
a reason that
but that,
will
not
being
upon
to the Legacies,
was given
to the
were decreed
And, where
all,
on the ground
oi
sum was
specific
given as a
allowed to pass
So where
per cent.
after her
was admitted
such stock
at
viously sold
it
was
a testator
Bank
mis-
to
shew
that
life,
and
evidence
Long
If the testator
the legacy
at
the time,
as specijic,
destroying
that subject
Campbell
v.
Freuch,
321.
(.'.
but
if it is
and any
would be a
a
denomina-
F 2
EQUIT? JURISDICTION.
08
tion,
if
the
a mis-
is
to arise,
it is
".
Mistake
the
in
name of
a Legatee,
may be
this,
evidence
of a legacy, parol
plain a nick-name, or
blank
in a will
probability
Where
9
,
if
it
it is
admissible
was
.
v.
of
insufficient.
to
the
intention, and to
lb. 310.
case, 1
v.
is
will
but there,
furnished
it
in-
reluc-
seems,
sufficient
Rivera
up a
fill
Atk. 410.
Parsons, 1 Yes.
Jun. 260. S. C. noticed arg.
3 Bro. C. C. 447.
p Beaumont v. Fell,
2 P.
Wins. 140. Goodinge v. Goodinge, 1 Yes. Sen. 231, 61. Dowsett v. Sweet, Ambl. 175.
"
per-
to
310.
see Parsons
two
must be conclusive,
it
there, arc
ad-
m Sel wood
to ex-
admissible
is
but not to
*>,
there
is
where
name
shew
tian
have
sufficiently
Yes. 070.
u
Fonnerauv. Poyntz,
C. C. 472.
Bro.
A CCO UN
doubt
to
dence to explain
Where
it
a Will
cancelled by mistake,
is
presumption that a
69
I.
latter will
good, which
is
Account.
9.
of
was considered
have
part}'
It
*.
upon which
that though he
to
in
seems, however,
is
relievable in Equity
The Jurisdiction
let in
or on
had a legal
suits
title,
at
for
was,
Law,
Equity
Equity assumed
bill
The
and
Bro.
"Onions
Tyrer,
P-
4'20.
The Corporation
v.
Wilson,
and
O'Connor
11 Yes. 155.
Spaight, 1 Sch.
Lefr. 309. and 2 Ves. 388.
1 vol. Selwyn's Abridgement,
p.l. Mitford's Pleadings, p.
110.
The most recent case
of an action ofaccountj is reported in 3 Wills. 73,
279.
C.C. 4^0.
v.
of Car276,
13 Ves.
the
brought that
1'.
Wins. 345, 6.
s.-e 4 Yin. Abr. 533. and
what Lord Ersfcine pays, 13
Ves f 288.bat seelVes. Jun.
J
is
of Account, as under a
lisle
in
in the action
account comes
*1
jurisdiction
in
latter,
Law
concurrent
cases of Account.
given at
see
v.
&
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
70
Law
If the right at
directed,
and
count follows
if
2
is
cannot recover
be doubtful, an issue
at
not sustainable.
Daw,
a bill
for
an Account
is
may be thesubject
of Account
It
is
man on
Equity, especially
vagant young
in
ground
be mutual
series of
misrepresentation
plaintiff,
that forms
an Account.
demands, forming
There must
the ground
c
;
payments on the other, and not merely one payment and one receipt and if the subject is matter
(1
not
lie ".
The
case of
ed as standing upon
is
Dower
its
own
is
a bill will
always consider-
specialities;
and so
f
.
as to
dealings between
produce an account
for an
and to have the balance applied to the rent claim* Vid. Milbourn and Fisher,
Ves. 685. in Note.
13 Ves. 278.
chall,
1
136.
d
Weliiugs and Cooper in
Exchequer, cited by Romilly,
MS. and see 9 Ves. 473.
e
Dinwiddie v. Bailey, 6 Ves.
136.
f
6 Vez. 136,
ACCOUNT.
71
The court
because
it is
in the nature of a
case of
in the
5. g
plicity of suits
though
to prevent a
multi-
fells
account by a Remainder-man
made
man must
though
take
viz.
money
case,
the
Law would
acourt of
A factor
ble
to
(unless he be an infant
',) is
compella-
deceased
Co-Factor
q
;
for
*
h
89.
r.
file
a bill for an
I.ee v.
Alston,
Ves. Jun.
C. C. 38.
p Smaller v. Smalley, 1 Eq,
A>r. 6.
q Holtscoml) v. Rivers, 1 Cli.
Cas. 127. S. C. 1 Eq. Abr. 5.
Nek. 125. S. C. 1 Eq. Abr.
r
6.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
72
but
whole debt
has been said, the Tenant by
it
An
costs
recovering at
Law
these
in
elegit
is
1
.
merely as heir,
heir cannot,
an Account, unless he
file
a Bill for
an impediment
states
to his
deeds necessary
title
has received
elegit
maintain his
to
way
title,
or
termed Ejectment
Bills,
and
these
as in
cases,
it
sends
it
that
to
be
by the
determined
the heir
to
pro-
bring an
at
Law
trial
had
a term satisfied
way under
Court of Law, they come back
and a
a
in that
the controVil of
for the account,
brances just
as
' Yates
362.
1
v.
Owen
in
giving relief
Ilambly, 2 Atk.
against
Griffith,
Anibl. 520.
"
the incum-
much incumbrances
convenience
all
in
as
There
if
the
great
is
See Leighton
Wins. 071.
v.
v.
Fortes-
Leitrhton,
AC COL' NT.
than by directing issues*; for the question
ther
anew
trial
trial
discussed with
whe-
much more
was had,
than
where the
satisfaction,
in
is
In
bills,
must,
it
however, of
seems, be some
ejectment
may
prevent an
infants, is insufficient".
With
and
where
Equity, in respect of a
equitable
tate;
title,
mesne
anEstate
in
Court
Profits
y
;
brings his
and upon
legal title at
Law
mere
no more than
trust, is
trust,
man
but as upon a
six years
so
where
profits
is
bill.
As
where the defendant had no notice of the plaintitle, nor had the deeds and writings in his
custody, in which the plaintiff's title appeared
or where the title of the plaintiff appeared by
tiff's
deeds
in a
stranger's
custody.
So,
where there
v.
Bam-
3 Atk. 130.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
74
asserting his
in not
fit
to restrain
In the instance of a
bill
and he has
sooner*,
title
on the estate of an
ing as guardian
enters
considered as enter-
infant, is
or
who
a
:
and
Where, indeed, there is a verdict against the infant's title he can have no Account till he has recovered at Law, and the bill
will be retained, and a trial in Ejectment diThere are other cases where the Court
rected b
so says Littleton.
will,
from the
has
tiff
filing
been
defendant
If there
Estate by
the
concealment of the
or
no
is
trust,
mesne
misrepresentation,
fraud,
title,
profits,
Equity
is
entitled
until
to the
account
relief is
1
See
prayed to have
Lockey
v.
Lockey,
Newburgh
produced
at all
trials at
"
Dormer v. Fortescue, 3
Atk. 130; see Yallop and Hoiworthy, 1 Eq. Abr. 7. New.
burgh v. Bickerstaffe, 1 Vern.
29G. and see Pettiward v.
Prescott,7 Yes. 541.
1 Vern. 295.
it
v. Bickerstaffe,
making
the plaintift'stitlewere
Roberdan
v.
Rous, 1 Atk.
544.
e
Norton
525.
v.
Frecker, 1 Atk*
ACCOUNT.
Law, and
the
be decreed,
title
no doubt
as to
Law,
established at
first
.)
to
profits will
if
there
is
title*.
In
all
cases
a legal Estate,
Where
mesne
though
profits,
years,
it
8.
tvccntij
bill filed
in
account
mesne
in
profits at
extend to a trust
Law; but
'.
for equitable
subject
form a
that Part-
is,
it
Law
Account to be taken
Partnership must not be illegal, as
Partnership
in
direct a
But the
Under-
Account
b
.
Account of
ship
and
this,
Townshend
v.
Ash, 3 Atk.
3 Atk. 337.
21 Jac. 1.
1
Nevture andRutton, Vin.
Abr. Tit. Account, (D. A.)
"
pi. 7.
See
instance
of a
3 Bos. and
Till.
2S0. and
Wat-
337.
nature of a Partner-
Profits, in the
Knowles
v.
Haughton,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
7(5
stock and
effects,
in
all
in
being
at the
ship
changes
time
mav be made
course of trade
a
his acts
for instance,
Colliery,
in the
becomes by
If a person
in
in
Partner,
which land
is
by operation
of Law, and
Frauds
d
.
is
where an Account
tled to
is
my
et
per tout,
be taken, each
to
is
enti-
transaction,
in,
or has
be considered
Ac-
in that
is
to
as his share,
A Judgment
worse condition
ances
made him
for
he must have
before the
all
the allow-
if one
ed otherwise
f
,
is
considered
it is
in
expressly provid-
Equity, (except as to
p
,)
is
not
1 Ves.
West
v.
Peace
Ves. 33.
8
Skip,
v.
Hammond
Ves. 242, 3.
Chamberlaine,
v.
Douglas,
ACCOUNT.
77
which
from
is
tin
till
afterward
\-
who
partner,
the survivor
So,
rupt.
sent, or
if
by effluxion of time
is
',
bank-
dissolved by con-
which continues
as before; so
going out
is
and
in a bill for
As between one
they are
that
and
if
partner could
whose
creditors
may
file
a bill to be
and pray
for
an Account of what
is
due
to the
mean time'".
Where there has been
between
in the
nership
retains
two;
the partnership
15 Yes. 227.
1 Ves. 243. and
see as to
tins,
Croft v. Pyke,
li
P.
Wms. 182. and
Ex parte
Williams,
Yes. 5. and Kxparte K umn, G Ves. 12<>, 7.
''
effects,
and afterwards
in note.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
73
becomes
a bankrupt,
right as against
ing in specie"';
became
separate Estate.
may
tinuance,
when
new engagements.
enter into
ners,
profits
a partnership
is
an Account,
filed for
fendant from
using
account
on a
for
the
and to
such disso-
liable to
Where
be
If after
for
bill filed
an Account of partner-
may
Account
is
q
;
whether
to
The
is
that he
then dismissed
Statute of Limitations
""
Peacock
and
if
the
is
Crashaw
no plea in bar to
v.
Collins,
15 Ves.
218.
p
Master
v.
Kirton, 3 Ves.
75.
Ves. 347.
n
is
'.
] 19.
3.
or not
a partnership exists
v.
Peacock,
1G
q
Marquis of Donegal
Stewart, 3 Ves. 440.
v.
r
See Peacock v. Peacock,
15 Ves. 52. and see Binford v.
Domnutt, 4 Ves. 750.
ACCOUNT.
TD
9
but though length of time
an open Account
forms no bar to an account, as between merchant
;
if
them hive
them dies, and
dealings between
of'
bill
an Ac-
for
remedy at
set
Law
up
1
.
as matter
l>\
proprio jure
of
equitable
bar, not
rule founded
for it is a
on principles of
to bring
state
superable difficulties
fore, that
can
fairly
a stale
demand.
make
demand
to a
of inconvenience
by neglecting
is
eonscious
it
"
'
Scndamore
v.
White,
Vera. 456.
Sherman v. Sherman, 2
Vern. 270. and see Bridges v.
Mitchell, Gdb. Eq. Rep. 225.
Doleraine v. Browne, S
liro. Ch. C. p. 633. and Whapham v. Wingfield, 4 Ves. and
Higgins v. Crawford, 2 Ves.
jun.572. Brownell v. BrowneU,
u
Doleraine against Browne,
3 Bro. C. C. 638.
w
See Hercy against Dinwoody, 4 Bro. 268.
'-i.
and
see
I.QU1TV JURISDICTION.
SO
*'
which
is
never activein
relief against
conscience
to stale
and acquiesced
his right,
Nothing can
its
slept
aid
upon
call forth
this
Court into
activity,
was always a
limitation to suits
Court*."
Where,
by
for a great
Account *; but on
the other hand there are cases when, where parties
are not called upon to refund what has been applied, and the Accounts are clear, relief has been
given,
elapsed
release, if
under
to a Bill for an
Account
answer
in
A
i
seal,
Account
writing
or
it
may be
b
pleaded in bar
and so may
may be
insisted
a stated
on
in an
impeaches an Ac-
As
lord
2 Ve. 581. see
Astrey's case, 2Freem. 55.
*
in Pickering v.
Stamford,
b
Mitford
Pleadings, 209,
210.
c
lb. 208.
C. C. 170.
d
Sumner
Atk.
1.
v.
Thorpe,
ACCOUNT,
SI
must annex
lu;
it
fraud
is
must by
Account,
stated
his plea
true, to
to be
the person to
for
it is
whom
the
among merchants,
looked upon as an allowance of an Account
current,
if
It is said, that
the merchant
object against
And with
in a
it
who
receives
it
does not
if
one
of Merchants,
is,
that
considered as a stated
it is
Account \
Where
Fraud appears
in a stated
Account,
standing
11
And though
by Arbitrators,
I.
if
any
2 Vern.
27<5.
Denton
v.
Shellard, 2 Y<
v.
V aw drey ,2
>.
2W.
'
VOL.
Account be
not conclusive,
it is
an
many
Vernon
110.
Atk.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
82
shewn
error can be
be
Account
in the
impeach
to
filed
But
'.
Account,
a settled
it'
a Bill
specific
Errors
that he has
was entitled
some
to
them stand,
but, letting
it is
it
it is
to defend himself,
Rule that
though the
this
sought to
is
a fixed
error
but where
to have";
' :
Errors ex-
if
the Plaintiff
reason for
it
upon the
Where
settled
to surcharge
settled
Tottenson
530.
and
falsify, if
Account
v.
Pout, 3 Atk.
v.
v.
Power,
1 Sell.
Wallwyn,
Ves. 123.
3 Bro. C. C. 200. yet see
v.
in
the Decree
When
bers
Pnjiid
which
There must
to
any
p.
at
shew there is
proves some of those
Bill
the Plaintiff
not
may come
be error enough
not
affairs,
'Chambers
v.
Goldwin, 9
/CCOUiNT.
and
Liberty, to surcharge
confined
to
mere
Liberty
is
Parties can
ought
is
Court takes
inserted that
shew
to
it
it,
is
a surcharge
and that
must be on proof on
any thing
if
his side
is
at liberty
is
falsification
is
stated
which credit
for
wrong charge, he
falsify,
any of the
if
or
as
it
but
shew an omission,
is
take
establishes
to be, that
may
not
Law \
Account and
they are
falsify,
of fact, but
errors
advantage of errors in
Where
S'
but that
great difference
is
given to
falsify, for
out'.
It
down
as a
Rule, to be departed
Man
standing
in
Accounts of
Employer
that a
bound
is
his transactions
not only
to
keep
on behalf of
Accounts of Payments,
:
and
if
he has neglected
to
to
make
demand
for
in that
Account
v
.
* Roberts v. Kuffin,
2 Atk.
112. S. C. Barn. 259.
'Pit
V.
v.
CWmondeley,
White
v.
LaJv
Lincoln,
>U*.
G 2
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
54
And
if
is
chargeable
for the
his
own, he
own.
tion^
as incidental
and Discovery.
It
and
was not
con-
it is
assumed
is,
collateral to an
till
Account
In the 29th
Court
z
.
Court
that
were considered
Crown, and
of the
Court
respecting
origin
Gwillim,
that Tythes
the
them b
to have dated
Tithe Cases, p.
790.
* lb.
2 Ves. jun.
p. 1080.
028. 5 Ves. 232. 7 Bro. P. C.
110, 111. Toml. Ed.
Vid. Mar. Co. I/itt. p. 159 s .
note 290 ; and see 1 Freeman,
ACCOUNT.
Henry VIII
some
S3
Tythe
difference in these
There
cases,
as to
Exchequer.
Tythes
is
and the
is
but
Court of
an Account of Tythes
for
in the
or as Lord
Hardwicke
"
to the
down even
says,
some cases d
another
in
for
Report';"
suit is
Ac-
)>
Demand
It is
for
Equity may be
Where the
filed for
is
Tythes be
still
clearly
the
observ-
a Bill in
Tythes
title to
made
our,
reasonable Evidence,
it
Law before
Common Law right of
an Issue at
is
Bench
or
Common
Exchequer,
Court
is
tried
Pleas
is
The
tried in the
issue
Kind's
Law
on the
side of the
same
..
4()3.
Carleton
well.
c
Parson.
11
Wins.
modus or
and supported by
pleaded
is
2 Atk. 137.
v.
Bright-"
'
s
case,
count
the
up
is
lim, p. 730.
Vid.
Lvgon and Strutt,
2 Anstr.001. Baker and Athill,
2 Anstr. 493.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
35
By
it
is
the 3?th
Henry VIII.
M that
directed,
the city
doubt
?.
19 and 20.
any variance
if
arise in
non-payment of Tythes, or
for
arise
ch. 12.
any
if
or
rent,
plaint
grieved, the
Mayor by
final
to
his assessments
Mayor make
but, if the
be awarded
if
any
made
in the
same with
to
shall
But
costs."
him> within
make an end
this particular
of Parliament
it
creating
special Jurisdiction,
The
right of a
to decree an
Ac-
at the suit of a
Per-
Court of Equity
be grounded on
to
Tythes
a clear,
in the Plaintiff,, or in
and
St. Paul's
jun. 583.
v.
2 Ves.
Warden,
Crickett,
and
vid.
&c.
some person
of St.
Paul's
v.
in
Morris,
ACCOUNT.
87
generally disputed
as
Tythes claimed,
where
is
the
not
objected only,
it is
that the
which
in
kind,
Tythes claimed
Title
in
not payable in
ner, as
real
claimed are
set
is
up
in
is
in
another Person.
the
description of cases,
In the
or real
first
Defendant claiming
modus
to the
or of a
composition, acknowledges
the
by him,
dis-
by
In the second
of that Title
to the
Tythes
claims,
is
in
question, which
Title
in
is
these cases
thus stated,
if
is
in
it is
the Person, in
has had
whom
the
pernancy of the
Bill is in effect
Paris,
Plaintiff
and
the
an Ejectment
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
SS
Bill,
and
to
is
be treated like
may
Equity, which
other Bills in
be termed Ejectment
make any
not to
is,
such Assistance
is
necessary
Law, where
111
Bills, in
forfeitures"
under
all
the Statute
file
a Bill
penalties
for
and
otherwise,
it is
not
treble value
p
,
no bar
is
at
terposition of a
Waiver
ground
in
Equity
most express
ro
upon the
q
,
7 Bro.
as
2 and 3 Edw. 6.
Wools v. Walley, 1 Anstr.
100 ; and see Bunb. 193,
1 Anstr, 100,
bD
FRAUD,
III. Fraud.
Till
by
ber,
lor
Chancel-
10,) the
I. c.
Star-Chamber the
plaintiff
relieved,
When
it is
considered,
what a
may
variety of trans-
be mixed up with
party,
and of relieving
Before
most
fruitful
proceed
founded
cases
state
we
in
to
head of Equity.
the
consideration
actual Fraud,
with a view,
"SeeNott and
son 329.
to
prevent Fraud.
Hill,
The
1 P.
proper to
it is
of
laid
down,
doctrine on
Wms,
310. I Wil-
VO
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
this subject
heads
may
1.
situations,
others, in fiduciary
of Trust Property.
and
2.
3.
4.
Gifts by
Ward to Guardian,
h.
Injunctions.
6.
Bills of Peewc.
7-
Pills of Certiorari.
8.
Bills of Interpleader.
9.
10.
Bills of Discovery.
] 1
Bills
Client.
n.
Quia Timet.
securing them,
the delivery
or
up of Deeds, or for
up of specific
delivering
the
Chattels.
13. Bills to enforce Contribution.
14. Bills in Cases
1.5.
Bills to establish a
Modus.
These Subjects
sion.
will
be considered
in
succes-
pbevcsttox or niAun.
)1
situations,
It is a rule
of Trust Property.
Upon
With a view
as trustee,
this principle,
to
but
is
not
is
trusteed
for
this rule,
bankrupt's Estate.
So, too, a
Committee
f
;
is
not
nor,
it
Governors of a Charity,
Charity Lands
h
;
for
the
take leases
to
is
of
same
the
applied as between
See
Holt
Holt, 1
v.
',
b
1
G Ves. 632.
Vern.
465. Ex parte Reynolds, 5 Ves.
707. Ayliffev. Murray, 2 Atk.
09.
d
Ex parte Hughes, C Ves.
6J7.
v
Bfeeres,
v.
12Ves.
6.
parte
'
Laeey, G Ves.
627 York Buildings Company
y'. Mackenzie,
8 vol. Bro. P.
C. p. 42. Toinlins's Edit.
'
l-x
Burden
v.
Burden, 18 Ves.
170.
Lister v. Lister,
Heme
Ch.
Cas. 191.
Anon. MS.
Ormond v. Hutchinson,
13 Ves. 47. Beaumont v. Boultbee, 5 Ves. 485, 7 Ves. 599.
11 Ves. 358.
k
Lowther v. Lowther, 13 Yes.
95. Watt v. Grove, 2 Sch. and
'
Left.
v.
and
LclV. 673,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
Q-L
Lord Hardwicke,
in
Auction*
that decision
The
reason
at
'.
why
ena-
it
bles
Nor
is it
ing"
rily
111
done
Trustee has
Trustee
human
of
r
otherwise
by Auction;"
but in this he must have been
unreported,
because Lord
Hardwicke in that case expressat a
Sale
ly decided
h*t
hav-
is
could not.
m See
in-r
grossly
the Court of a
Sanderson
v.
Walker,
13 Ves. (502. In Ex parte Bennett, 10 Ves. 393. Lord Eldon
buy
may be
testimony,
So very jealous
taking
in a case
1
1 Ves. 9. and see Decree in
that case in 5 Ves. Jun. 6S2.
i->
may
Ex
to
C. C. G27.
n
Fox against
2 Bro. C. C. 400.
Ex
Macreath,
393.
p
Whelpdale
v.
Cookson,
1 Ves. 9.
q See lb. 385. 395.
and Ex
parte Lacey, 6 Ves. 627.
r
Ex parte Bennett, 10 Ves.
385.
riiEVENTlOK OF FRAUD.
benefit himself, that
93
it
own
benefit,
to the
sell
Church
Trustee purchased
the
it,
tion in
own
his
how
little
benefit;
power
it.
cases,
all
thrown back
such circumstances,
If on a
will not
beset aside
it is
*.
found to be
seems, under
insist
Purchase by a Trustee,
it
v
.
is
allowed to purchase
provided there
is
distinct
after
there
is
no Fraud, no
v.
lb.
MUlett, 7 Bro.
Toirilins's Edit,
v.
Dixon,
ib.
'Seethe
Lefr.
P. C. 3fi7.
and Annesley
213.
case,
p. 131.
character
r/
Sch. and
v
Sanderson
v.
13 Yes. (*)3. Lister
Walker,
v.
Lister,
6 Ves. 031.
w
Coles
and Trecotliick,
9 Ves. 246. approved by Lord
EQUITY JURISDICTION*.
91
the
Infant, and
Trustee
the
for*
may
is
file
From many
cases,
to give
more
x
.
2.
for leave to
it
and
Clients.
large
may
Transactions liable to no
objection as between
at
Man
may
cease, a Client
may
2 Bro.
C.
S&undersoTJ
Ml.
C.
v.
Campbell
v.
Walker, 5 Ves.
v.
Payne, 2 Ves.
681.
"
Newman
Jun. 201.
b
Wells and
Middleton, 4
PREVENTION OF FKAUD.
It
different
is
95
is
also
his character
to
of Attorney, and
makes a conveyance
case,
supported
will be
it
may make
Client
Attorney or Agent'
voluntary
and
if
set aside
to his
gift
unaffected by fraud,
misrepresentation, or circumvention,
1
it
cannot he
for if not,
a suspicion attaches
where such
a transaction
ceedings
Equity
An
such
in
give
is
so, that
party
be
upon
Court
his costs,
may
Attorney
much
to
must be
able to
shew
amount
to his Client
\
Wood
v.
\ id.
W.dmesley
2 Atk. 30.
e
See Cray
v.
ib.
Booth,
Mansfield,
v.
13 Ves.
see
12; S. C.
MS. and
s
Harris v. Tn-emenhere,
15 Ves. p. 42. S. ('. MS.
h
Gibson and Jeyes, G Vei.
278.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
QG
If an Attorney pendente
doing Business
or whilst
lite,
for
lie
is
upon him
an exorbitant
for
no Attorney
or at any period,
it,
an extraordinary benefit
is
at least as strong
L
:
nor
unless
it
be separate and
111
Bond or Mortgage
to secure the
of a
Law Suit,
payment
him on account
on the ground of
n
.
has ordered
after
are cases
seventeen
p
,
or
twenty-one years,
Saunderson
v. Glass,
2Atk.
298.
k
Wood and
Dowries, IS Ves.
Newman v.
See also
Payne, 2 Ves. Jun. 199. S. C.
4 Bio. C. C. 350 j and see
Lewis and Morgan, 3 Anstr.
709.
Aubrey v. Popkin, 1 Dick.
403.
p Drapers Company v. Davis, 2 Atk. 295.
30.
TMIKVENTION 0*
yet
amounting
errors,
may
The
llnle,
it
he
q
,
not, for
and so
in
to
be relieved.
must
far,
the Client
if
97
FliAUl).
as to
undertaking long
and expensive
ease, therefore,
considered upon
is
Every
suits.
own
its
cir-
appears but a
trifling-
\.
by expectant Heirs,
3. Sales
in a
in
is
distinguished from
him,
oidinary
made with
is
in
In
therefore, of this
cases,
description,
and
in
cases of Marriage
ground
ol"
Consequences'.
Heirs, the Court
of mischief to
And
in these
cases of
Setree, 18 Yes.
127.
r
in
>b.
v.
lb. p. 120.
'
G wynne v.
C. C.
10
VOL.
I.
&c.
Ikuton,
and
see
one such
Cully,
v.
'
young
Gibbons,
v
Uro.
Brook
2.UL.
Liircood, 2
:i
II
case, to
v
;
have
35, BafrnardiAton
Walmesley
2 Atk. 28,9.
v.
upon them
\Vtos. -293.
v.
Jiootli,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
9S
denied relief
Cowper's expression,
Parliament to reverse
it*.
mainder, at an under
expectancy may be
Vendee
was
it
set aside
sold, provided
An
z
.
fairly sold
it is
in favor of
shew
shall
rate,
that
the taking
'
in distressed
Inadequacy
who
sons,
is,
more
its
grossness
it is
of
at large hereafter,)
in regard to
ground
itself,
(as will
Evidence of Fraud
Inadequacy,
Berney
be seen
but
v. Pitt,
2Vern. 34.
Wms.
between Per-
Consideration
substantially be considered as
is
."
in
from
of
Wiseman
c
;
and
in
is
such
v.
Nephew, near
forty
years
Barnardiston
v.
Lingood,
2 Atk. 134.
c
Peacock v. Evans, 16 Ves.
517 and see Gowland and,
:
De
PREVENTION
case the conveyance
FUAUD.
OI'
set aside
is
99
on payment of
considered as a Mortgagee
The tendency
der
all
cure,
of these deterniinations to
ren-
Bargains with
if
considered as operating
and establishment
prevent
to
adoption
its
some
as
Doctrine
them,
recommendation
of the
6
.
the Father,
been kept
the frau-
in the
expec-
dark
and
who
his
has
Heir
who have
f
.
if
Tradesmen,
extravagant
but
it
prices, a
Court
might be otherwise,
See Gowland
Ws.
17
andDe
Faria,
2JJ.
v
Per Master of the Rolls in
Peacock v. Evans, 16 Ves.
fI4,
1
515.
Chesterfield
2 Ves. 157.
e
See Bill v. Price, 1 Vern.
v.
Smith.
407.
Lami-ilugh
2 Vern. 77. Whittey v. Price.
2 Vern. 78. Brooke v. Gallev,
2 Atk. 35.
and Jansen,
h2
EQUITY jurisdiction.
100
some of
In
where
taken,
from
the cases,
Heir
the
and
his Father,
distinction
is
has been
has
no
maintenance
turned
out.
upon unrea-
Bargain
case, if the
is
Bargain
is
to supply the
but
Luxury and
would have
Seller
lost his
in
in case the
Heir
life
for
such
hazard'
comes
not
money
The Court,
is
to
it
Estate
expectancy
in
most
them
Where an
open
extravagant price
and
may
be relieved so
mortgage
quantum
is
is
but
meruit,
it
verdict
for
so
after
is
it
the Heir
determined,
much
it,
stands as a security
kind.
taken to secure
as
far
upon
impositions of this
to
sold,
which naturally
part,
as
still
is
real
worth
be binding
found by the
'.
held bad
h
Sir
'
Freeman
v.
Bishop, 2 Atk.
PREVENTION OF FRAUD.
101
firmed,
cannot
it
is
pay-
is,
he set aside
for
anew
Agreedoubtful
at first a
Bargain, though
it
the confirmation
is
it is
Obit
whose Life
been assigned,
bo
the Obligor
person
it
will not
influence,
Where
and
given,
it
of imposition appearing
Fraud,
Post
if
the Party
firmation
If a
if
be poor, or distressed, or
the former transaction,
to
prevent
of,
Man
in
Equity
person
is
Ward
his
at the time
f!ie
Trust;
taken.
taking any
It
flattery, or
and
delivering up
force,
or bad usage
v. Janson,
Chesterfield
S. C. 1 Atk. 301.
"Seel Atk. a-34 an. 1 see
1
2 Ves.
fcile
294.
v.
may be
Gibbon
s,
3 P Wins.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
102
with
is
of
Courts of Equity
relief in
as in
Court
fore the
in a particular instance,
unfairness
The Rule
1'.
tive of hardship
as
and the
Trouble,
and honestly
blished
it
in
though perhaps,
may
not be actual
some
cases, produc-
there
is,
it,
has acted
from a persuasion of
its utility,
every
Man owes
it is
a debt
to another, as
Man
is
If,
comes of
possession of his
into
and on
stances
trust,
fairly
Estate, thinks
fit,
when
sui juris
grant,
Courts of Equity
will
and delivering up
the Estate,
making
that the
r
.
Hylton
v.
Hylton, 2 Ves.
Sen. p. 547.
'lb. p. 540.
r
See lb. p. 540. Cray v.
Mansfield, 1 Ves. 370. Griffin
and De Veuille, 3 Wood. Lect.
set
his
PREVENTION OF PtlAUD.
103
On
these principles,
made by
upon
his
Ward
to
vrtt
Guardian, immediately
his
Deed
his
to his
Guardian
Ward,
the
cancelled.
to
So, where a
Husband
Marriage cove-
before his
counts
this
to be binding,
all
ac-
and was
Brokage Agreement
r
.
An-
Guardian, at the
his
was
set aside
said,
w
.
Release
that a
came of Age,
by the Guardian, should never by him be thought
a trick, but that it was the proper time for such
obtained, as soon as ever the Heir
wise
5.
Injunctions.
Injunctions are in
may be
classed
under
head of Equity.
2 Ves. 547.
Hutch v. Hatch, 9 Ves.
29-2.
u
it
Lord Mohun,
v.
1 P. Wins.
118.
Hylton
v.
Hylton, 2
547.
*
Vcj.
104
EQUIT y JTJniPDTCTION.
The
out which, the benefit of an Equity, against proceedings at Law, could not be had
may be made
use of as
handles
Law,
obtaining justice at
it
but as they
delay the
to
possible,
much
prevent, as
as
All
Of
liberally
than formerly
An
late
no one appearing
sence of a Creditor,
for
is set
by
for,
forth
ting or
seems
it
breach of
Injunction-
prayed
as
the Injunction
An
for a
him
is
a prohibitory Writ,
a Bill in
which the
specially
Plaintiff's Title
doing
an-
Act,
(other
than
criminal
,)
cedes,
sometimes
and
Decree.
It
may
Travers
v.
JLowl
the Circumstances
Stafford,
2 Ves. 20.
z
Potter against
Ambl. 99.
1
Hanson
;J07.
to
Chapman,
Gardener, 7 Ves.
of the
v.
subsequent
a suit, according to
7
is
it
PHEVXNTION OF FKACD.
If
on
1 1
103
will
verifying
Affidavit,
00 Motion made,
In fore
the service
of the
opposite
between
Vacation, or
the
in
if
the
to
the
and Certificate
to
continue
the
till
Order concerning
the Defendant
it.
When
may move
make some
the answer
in
his
further
comes
in,
will
is
shewn
shall then he
it
to the
dissolved
is on
such day determined by the Court, upon Arguments drawn lioin considering the Answer and
till
if no cause
is shewn, then,
upon Motion, and an Affidavit of the due service
Affidavit together, or
be made absolute
ters of Practice,
and
when we come
to
will
be more
treat
i\)\\\
considered,
of the Practice
of the
Court.
An
Injunction
is
'
An Injunction against
waste wtU begranted, though
the defendant appeal tre uay
before the motion, Aller v.
Jones, 15 Yes. p. GU5. Pei1
may be
proper, and
haps
where
might he
i*
different
lie
enough
plaintiff
iL>.
obtained,
to give
notice.
See
LQC^ITY JURISDICTION.
1UO
in
To stay proceedings
1.
Court,
Law
To
restrain the
In-
4.
ings in a Court of
2.
or
Exchange, Notes,
(i.
To prevent
the
fyc.
or the Transfer
of Stock
granted
but which
1
As
however, be considered.
will,
an Injunction
to
to
And,,
other Court.
Suit
menced, and
proceeding
It has,
brought
fendant
a concur-
which
it
com-
is
in the Suit.
may
Exchequer
file
if
a Bill
to foreclose, the
a Bill in the
is
De-
Court of Chancery
not be sustained.
bad;
is
It
may
by means of an Injunction.
1
Earl of
Newburgh v. Wren,
Vern. 220
relief
PREVENTION OF FRAUD.
So
l(/7
in
Chan-
Jurisdiction,
some exceptions
(with
mentioned,) hinder
possessed
first
in
it
that
will
not
presently be
of the
from
Suit,
proceeding
b
.
If a Suit
is
and a Modus
Ti/thes,
is
up
set
as a defence,
Court
but
if
a Suit
is
thr>
will grant
in the Spiritual
there instituted
for
sub-
traction of Tythes,
Bill to establish a
gestion of a
admitted, the
is
If,
where a
Court
Bill
Modus pleaded
Court may then
indeed, the
Ecclesiastical
in
Court
but
the Ecclesiastical
that
iriationis defectum'-,
was brought
to establish
it
rest
and
greatest
tion*.
The
grant an
Injunction
stay a Uusba?id
176.
to
the Spiritual
proceedings
seeBunb.
in
filed,
Court, to
Court
that
to
Bunb. 170.
Kothtrain
3 Atk. 027.
>.
Faushaw.
10S
gVm
obtain a Legacy
to his
to
make an
it
him
will permit
"Where a Suit
oblige
to receive the
instituted
is
him
the
in
do,
to
Lcgacy
f
.
Spiritual
Court
Money
Father's hands.
It
because
of an Infant to
come
will
it
into the
in
or, as
all
it
it
p.
takes of Infants
In
Legacies,
is
a Trust,
Trust, the]
Court of Chancery
An
h
.
An
Injunction
may
'.
Such Injunctions
Anon.
Atk. 491
see
2 Dick.
Stonehouse,
Smith and Keinpson.
Anon. 3 Atk. 350.
'
v.
7b9.
PREVENTION OF FRAUD.
1")
ma Court
Jurisdiction
in
respect of its
Law k
in these
Law; and
junction,
Common
issues
the In-
making use of
is,
it
cases
lie
Such Injunctions
Trial, or after a
Judgment
Verdict to
if
or
to stay
Judgment, or
after
or proceedings
if
Money
stay the
Sheriff; or
sta}^
Execution,
stay
to
under an Execution"
place, to
sometimes used
are
part only of a
in
may
it
issue to re-
And where
Bill, there
commonly
that the
is
Complainant
therein stated, to
is
make
a suggestion in
good discharge
the
the
as
id
other
Equity,
Law
make
such
some reasons
his defence in
it,
for a
Complainant
is
he
files his
k
See what
630.
1
1 1
"
ill
^ec
Bill,
is
said,
v.Turner,
cognizable
Ark.
A.tk.516.
in
Phips,
against
7;J.
Court refuses
10 Ves.
Woden,
\i
144.
Code*
Bro. C. C.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
110
some
him
power to do him
right".
if on
but
all
Pro-
it is
not
a service of the
commenced
if
his
he hath, but
not delivered or
filed
proceed; but
may
if
ment, or
if that
may
tained, he
if Error
the cause
if
and
Trial,
and
want of
for
is at
it
Issue, he
he
sign a Judg-
may go on
to
if
Judgment hath
till
Answer and
further
Where
a Defendant
ground
special
from him
granted
p
;
is
to
shew
is
rious occasions in
nPrac.
R eir.
vol.
Wyatt's Edit.
Hind,
those va-
p. 232.
Seel
all
p. 222.
inter-
v.
Wilkinson,
2
13
PREVENTION OF FKAUD.
teres
by Injunction
It is a general
to restrain
Ill
Proceedings
Law.
at
of cases, that wherever a Party by Fraud, Accident, or otherwise, has an advantage in proceeding
in a
necessarily
make
Injustice, a
Court of Equity,
that
Court an
which must
Instrument of
to prevent a manifest
wrong, will
whose conscience
is
would be
is
restrained;
be considered.
in the
Law
in respect
riffht
Court of Equity,
will be granted
for instance,
gene-
ceedings at Law,
If,
Account,
which equi-
in
and so he would
relieved against in a
an Injunction
or
would be
In most of
to restrain
pro-
Injunction
ceedings at Law.
was contrary
was obtained
for
Money won
at
',
play
5
;
Note
where,
, or
on a Policy of Insurance, the Life insmed was, at
'
See
Mitford's
Pleadings,
H6.
'3 Atk.
50(>.
See
|0Ves,
Cork
!"'
v.
Richards,
Anstr. 851.
v..
Aml>l.(>6.
Blackwood,
:}
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
112
the
be
in a state
of Health
was represented to
it
description.
as
Conveyance of an
brought
a Partition
Estate, so that an
and
Ejectment
Court *
So, a Bill will
lie
for
discovery, and an
In-
Execution be issued
If an
separate debt
for
on Account of
may be
filed
by the solvent
Account of what
for an
is
due
to
is
the Partnership
wound up,
And upon
are
Property
as hath before
been remarked.
same
if
the
principle
Foreign
See
vol.
Attachment by
Woodeson's
Ves. 29.
y Isaac v. Ilumpage, 1 Ves.
jun. 427. S. C. li bro. C. C,
40:j.
Baker
v.
'
;30G
heci. p. 410.
'
Hart,
Accounts
after the
separate
one Partner, on
to
the
issuing
a Joint Creditor
Taylor v. Field,
and see Dulton
;
4 Ves.
v.
Mor-
and see
17 Yes. 200
Barker v. Goodair, 11 Yes. 85.
rison,
PltEVENTION OF FRAUD.
113
may he
are wound
obtained,
till
up \
Put
been
has
it
Injunction, the
made
15
would be
It
An
different, it seems,
the course of a
in
Win.
Cause
if
3.
the
c
.
may
Infringement of Patents.
2.
Injunction
of
in possession
it,
(a
Sale of
is
it,
Patent
bad,
it
good
is
Law; and
tried at
may be
Chancellor
the
is
d
.
doubtful
was
If he
this,
although
whether the
was
Formerly, in
Patent, on opening
the case of a
Party
was sent
Patent
for
Law,
to
for
an Account'.
an invention
is
restrained to
There
England,
it
must be a
distinct Patent
Goodair, 11 Yes.
Barker
v.
78.
D
Gwinett
v.
Bannister,
11
Vcs. 530.
lb. p
d
v.
532.
University ot'Oxford,
Venn
c
See Grierson y. Eyre, 9
Ves. 341.
r
Dpdsley against Kinnersley,
Ambl. 400. Anon. 1 Vji:i,
120.
Ireland.
27;-).
130;
VOL.
to
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
Ill
And
one Country,
confined
is
Party
enable the
that,
to
to
11
Bills
upon
distinct
invasions of a Patent \
3.
commit Waste
tion upon;
to wait
it
till
Where
the
is
and
n
,
threat
the
Title
Waste
actually committed
is
doubtful
is
at
disputed,
or
',
Law
m
,
it
seems,
may be
it
11
as
or other-
in general,
to
ground an Injunc-
sufficient to
mere
But
obtained to stay
,)
in
the subject
tingent Remainders,
Remainder-man comes
tion to stay
An
Waste p
Injunction
entitled only
to
in esse, obtain
may also be
Contingent
6Ves. 718.
lb.
754.
Gibson v. Smith,
183. S. C. Barn. 491.
Field v. Jackson,
1
2 Atk.
2 Dick,
59 1
v. Litton,
3 Atk.
211.
-487.
k
v.
Collyer, 6Ves.89.
S.
also S.
Cotton, 3 Atk.
Ves. 524, 546. and
G. 1 Dick. 183. where
C.
v.
- Smith
obtained by Persons
q
an Injunc-
ton,
*
is
I'UEVENTIOM OF FRAUD.
test/,
who
Dower
ill
or as Guardian %
llii
but being
a Trustee
Waste
is
to
inhibit
may
It
him
or against
be obtained,
Tenant
against a
u
extinct
Mines, or
digging
also,
felling
down
Timber*'.
by such persons,
of Issue
for
fleet,
Atk. 425;
and see
God, as by Tempest, or by a
Trespasser and by wrong, have
the first Estate of Inheritance,
v.
com:
233.
'2
or
Perrot
*,)
mitting malicious
3 Wood.
Lect. 399.
Life, without
ib.
overruling
what is said in
Toby v. Molyos, Plowd. 470.
The Right to Timber belongs
32.
I
LQU1TY JURISDICTION.
116
itself,
missive Waste y
By
destruction
very
Common Law,
the
the
Tenant
for
it
was
first
the necessary
in
gene-
was not
be restrained
to
But Courts
power
greatly,
formerly
in
Equity
Castle
in
comparison of what
re-
down
(the
from pulling
his
was
it
in
Ruby
of
And
strongest that
it,
J41
determined that
ral,
but did
the properly
not give
still
farther,
to support
Afterwards
and restrained
from cutting
such Tenant
cutting
for Life,
down Trees
in a Park,
v.
Prec. in Cha. 454.
Copley, MS.
1
11 Co. 79; but see 3 Atk.
215.
Alston v. Alston, 2 Ves.
265, 266.
b
3 Atk. 215.
Vane
v.
% and
Lord Bernard, 2
Ch. 454.
Mentioned 1 Ves. 2(i5.
e
Parkinson's Case, 3 Atk,
215. 1 Ch. Cas. 166; but see
what is said in Aston v. Aston ?
Vern. 788.
d
1 Ves. 266.
S. C. Prec.
PREVENTION OF FRAUD.
1 17
much Timber as
unimpeachable
Waste,
for
liberty to cut
is at
Husbandlike man-
in a
it
Tim-
ner,
the Place
Country
being
there
':
as that
le Belle) in the
it
*.
But subject
(a
made by
no such
Law
in this
made
este
garde pour sa
beaute.
not
It is
for the
Waste
to cut
situated
neither
is
merely ornamental,
it
Waste
unless
it
in
which
to
cut Timber
it
is
Wood
tend to a
it
seems, ex11
down
but
of Trees
it
from
n
.
If a Testator, or
Tenancy
for Life,
his taste
95.
Perrot
As
to
v.
Perrot,
'J
Atk.
h
'
v.
'
183.
n
lb. 185.
Burgees
lVes: 2f>4.
16 Ves. 185.
lb. 1S5.
Day
375.
v.
Lamb, 16
Ves.
tfnd
Merry, IS \\i-
EQUITY JURISDICTION,
IIS
The
ornament.
for
Principle has
Avenues, and to
all
ground
for
Plantations,
to
it is
not a sufficient
but
to the
surrounding Country.
Court
If the
it
will direct
same time
at the
time, the
mean
Tenant
cutting
for
the decision
n
.
Life
down clumps
if
Plaintiff
of Fir, on a
Common two
The terms
workmen, and
agents,
down Timber,
or other
shelter of
houses, belonging
to
the
v.
110,
PREVENTION OF FRAUD
119
or
otheror oi
to
restrain the
Defendant,
fit
to
be cut, as mid
woods but
in a
in the spring
An
is
for Life,
ornament**'
may be
Injunction
Tenant
to
two Tenants
the
commit Waste,
for Life to
to
when
power commences q
time comes
the second
.
r
able against a Joi ntress or a Mortgagor%or a Mort,
gagee in Fee
See
1
,
or for
Lord Tamworth
Years v
v.
but
if
a Mortgagor
Ves. 2G4.
3 Atk. 723. and Usbome
v. Usbome, 1 Dick. 75. and the
several cases there mentioned.
against
Lee,
Far rant
Ambl. 105. and see Robinso.i
v. Litton, 3 Atk. 210.
T
3 Atk. 723.
*
'
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
120
cuts
Wood
An
Waste*.
Injunction
lies also
against a Lessee
an intention of committing
Waste *; but
be considered as
will not
it
not con-
is
an Injunction will
A-Iiill for
Landlord or a Termor
Lessee
tion
51
is
Case
is
cut down
was
till
is
in the
Hampton
v.
the hearing,
Pews
houses, Chancels or
Church-yard,
not only by
Remainder-man,
except
in
Guardian
An Injunction
Timber
his
Timber, an Injunc-
refused, on behalf of a
him
Tenant
Infant,
of age, by
a great quantity of
to restrain
the.
Where an
his
An Injunc-
like special
ting
by aground
Inheritance unless he
tion
at
lie
And
e
.
such a
Hodges, 8 Ves.
A nstr. 749
Bill lies
Waste
f
;
105.
in note there.
a
Furrant against Lee, Ambl.
105.
b
Farrant v. Lovell, 3 Atk.
723. Ambl. 105.
c
Prac. Regr.
d
Mr. Seville's Case, mentioned, For. 6.
Molina,
Ves. 320.
Strachy
v.
Francis,
2 Atk.
210.
'
Knight against
Ambl.
170,
Moseley,
WL
PREVENTION Ci FRAUD.
but where the Living
against the
Waste
Widow
*.
is
If,
he
but
if
for
any
but he
common
pur-
however,
may
cut
he grubs
may be
the Parsonage
down Timber,
not cut
try,
to
is
Barns and
to
Outhouses, belonging
pose.
Rector committi:,
of the
also entitled
may
it
up
it is
Waste.
An
Injunction
Formerly,
in a case of
Trespass, unless
to a nuisance, an Injunction
felling
h
it
grew
re-
Waste
title is
as
where
Ambl. 176.
See Hanson
1
v. Gardiner,
7 Ves. 307. Mogg v. Mogg,
2 Dick. 670.
k
In Kinder v. Jones, 17
Ves. 110, a donbt was made
by the Chancellor, but the
Injunction in that case was
grunted afterwards
by the
Mastef of the Rolls, the dcfendants, though served with
Xiotice, not appearing.
I
;)
'.
stone,
h
disputed
Crockford
v.
Alexander,
184.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
1-2-2
Manor
Manor
is
may obtain
A. is tenant for years, remainder to B. for Life, Remainder to C. in fee, and^. is doing Waste B,
though he cannot, not having the Inheritance,
bring an Action for Waste, is entitled to an In;
junction
But
if
the
Waste be of a
trivial
na-
termed melio-
case,
be made a Party
in fee,
Remainder-man
they, possibly,
for
may
So, an Injunction between Tenants in Common against malicious Destruction may be ob-
Waste
is
tained,
1
Common may
obtain
Tenant
m Grey
berlarid,
in
v.
Common, who
Duke
of NorthumC.
S.
8 Yes. 236.
17 Ves. 281.
n
Dench
v.
occupying Tenant to
is
1 Roll Abr.
Rosewell's case, 377.
p
1 I" st 53
< 3 P. Wms. 268. n. F.
Bampton, 4Ves.
Hole
v.
Thomas, 7 Ves.
589.
s
Smallman
v.
Onions and
PREVENTION OF FRAUD,
Plaintiff";
the
123
stances, an Injunction,
it
Common
1
.
a Bill
filed
is
been already
multiplicity of Suits,
Action
to bring an
at
Law, but
for
what
is
decree an
u
passed
but
or
will
down
no
v
,
lie for
injury to be prevented.
an account
If,
and continues
is
commit Waste.
4.
will
be
laid for
If,
such Proceeding.
that the
at
Law,
an Injunction
even upon the submission in the answer " the
a Court of Equity will not grant
'
Twort
132. S. C.
'
v.
Goodwvn
667.
Twort, 16
Ves.
MS.
v.
Sprav,2Dick.
u
Jesus College v. Bloom,
3 Atk. 202,3. S. C. Amhl. -A
iee SWitl
\tk. 381.
EQUITY JURISDICTION,
124
Court,
Lord Eldon,
says
."
the
The
Principle on
an Action
relief,
that
is,
is,
each in-
in
upon the
have
sold,
extent,
but
may
which no Inquiry
mages can
ascertain
doubt appears as
to
for
But wherever
z
.
fair
to be tried,
it
and only
a
.
exclusively appointed by
print a Trial before
that
Trial,
was granted
b
.
p. 1.
y lb.
Hogg
Kirby, 8 Ves.
225 and see Wilkins v. Aikin,
17 Ves. 424.
;
* See
Wilkins
17 Ves. 422.
b
v.
file
Gurney
v.
Ves. 493. S. C.
separate
v.
Aikin,
Longman, 13
MS.
PREVENTION' OF FRA.UD.
Bills against
Books
fers his
may
made
be
Most
sought
l^'i
If a
that person,
to another,
a Party
Defendant transit
seems,
c
.
to
new work,
the old
an Injunction
has,
applied to restrain
work
;
but
Work, which,
same
A
is
the
Act
for the
Queen Anne,
whom
private Letters
them
f
.
It has
been granted,
cation of
Law
tiously procured
5.
taken in
short
Dilly
v.
h
.
Doicc,
2 Ve?. jun.
486.
d
'
v.
Dunkin,
207.
8 Ves. 215.
Pope v. Curl, 2 Atk. 341.
Thompson
A mil.
v.
Stanhope,
Mr.
Ambl. (>1>4.
h
Macklin against Richaidi
so-.i, Ambl. 694.
EQUITY JURISDICTION,
]26
It
competent
is
Road Book,
to
though the
collections,
publish their
might happen
be the same
to
Nor
is it
the
might
articles
Work
all
World; and
another
Court
of
tation
may
what it
define, fair Quouse,
k
#
',
unguarded plagiarism.
An Abstract m ox fair Abridgment of a Work,
but a colorable Abridgment is not.
is allowable"
,
In regard to Engravings,
ed, that, the
Act
ly confined
to
(8
already in nature
is
II.
13.) is
not mere-
thing
been holden,
It has
that is
also, that
ter,
424.
t.
Ch.
engraving any
p
2 Bro.
the designing or
it
Geo.
it
and see
Arabl. 403
againt Richardson,
Ambl. 696.
n
Gyles v. Wilcox, 2 Atk.
143. S. C. Barn. 366. Bell
against Walker, 1 Bro. C. C.
451.
Butterworth v. Rcjbinson,
5 Ves. 709. 2 Atk. 143.
p Blackwell v. Harper, 2Atk.
92. S. C. Barn, 210.
ley,
Mackliu
PREVENTION OF FRAUD.
represented in the same
the* are
form'
127
maimer and
5. If
affected,
by
an
Bills,
due
the Indorsee,
them
by Injunction, immediately
of the Bill, supported by an affidavit
may
be restrained,
on the
filing
in
mation of the
defeat
suit,
object
its
lently obtained,
upon
inti-
Bond
or
Covenant fraudu-
without notice,
Law,
Fraud
for
re-
he
own
when
the
Bond
is
obtained by Fraud": so
is,
in general, unnecessary.
restrained
as
under different
Bills
Quia
where there
and
Wills'
1
presently be made.
many
are
instances been
opposite claims
in other cases
where
which mention
will
was obtained to restrain a transfer of Stock standing in the name of a Steward, on strong evidence,
by affidavit, that it was the produce of his master's
q
2 Atk. 95.
Lex Proetoria, MS.
See
note.
Fonbl. Eq. 43
in
Lex
6 Ves. 172.
Praetoria,
MS,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
128
Money
e
.
6.
Law
the
Nuisance
is
which
that
persons, as in stopping
Public Nuisance
is
public:
or
only particular
affects
up ancient
it
may
&c.
lights,
many
such as affects
Private
persons,
likewise be of a
should be
ral
and
will
is
it
Nuisance respecting
because
the
whether he
or not
file it
the
filed in
Plaintiff's
lights
lights
is
are altered
for
upon
in*
near as to
a nuisance.
it
must be so
Seventeen feet
sance.
The
as a nuisance
An
e
loss of a
Prospect
is
dis-
such nui-
not considered
''.
Lord Chedworth
v.
Ed-
'
v.
lb. 150.
Fishmongers
against
1
Dick.
East
lt>5.
Company
India
House,
PREVENTION OF FRAUD.
down
pull
to
129
Plaintiff's
pull
but
rarely,
lights,
it.
will,
done on a decree
in
way
of Trial
obstructed,
7.
till
had
after Trial
Where
the
times
in
overflowed
at other
on a
purpose, an
from preventing
it
k
.
It
repairs to be
an order
though
may be made
that effect.
a Canal,
done,
Thus an
in
(a nice
distinction,)
by an order
to restrain the
VOL.
I.
Defendant from
in the Navigation,
k
1 Qb, Ca. 574. See also
Robinson r. Lord Byron, 1 Bro,
C. C. 5&8,
K.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
130
spectively
for Life,
repair
'."
The Court
re-
Tenant
to repair
m
.
will grant
on Land leased
to the
seems, according to
wickc, an
Injunction
had
has
lies in
so, too,
it
ground, of which
possession
Law "but
And
another
twenty- one
for
is
Remedy
at
Remedy
An
in
Chancery
V*
be granted,
personal
Property,
Compensation,
to
also,
194.
numbers of applications
of the
it
are
is
Hughes v. Trustees of
Morden College,
Ves. Sn.
189.
p Lady Arundel!
10 Ves. 139.
v.
Phipps,
PREVENTION OF FRAUDascertained,
upon the
parable mischief
131
r|
otherwise than
to state,
Decree
If a
made;
is
detached Propositions.
in
in
execution of a Trust,
to controvert
that at
So,
if
An
*.
maintained, in
many
assets
may be
Injunction
cases, to prevent an
cumstances
Wife,
'.
for instance,
her
Husband being
in the
West
Indies,
and
if
is
by Injunction,
not in affluent
cumstances
On
cir-
a Bill
q
Nubbrowne v. Thornton,
lOVes. 1G3.
' Flower
v. Herbert, 2 Ves.
32".
s
'
Taylor
v.
Allen,
2 Atk.
213.
lb.
Hathornwaite
2 Atk. 12G. S. C,
K 2
v.
Russell,
Bam.
334.
QU1TY JURISDICTION.
132
to restrain the
w
to the Heir
Agreement
by the time
is
not performed
him pn^ing
against
an Injunction
may be
also,
and
filed
restrain
may bring
may be filed
in
specific Performance,
mean
the
time.
An
and
Injunction,
perty
x
.
may be
of the Parties
An
Injunction
# Fish-ponds
lies to
An Injunction
against the
not be granted, at
established
least,
Use of a Market
who makes
',
"*
Green
against Lowes,
3 Bro. C. C. 218.
Harty v. Schrader, 8 Ves.
318 and see on this subject
Read v. Bowers, 4 Bro. C. C.
;
441.
v.
is
Weeks
Law
until a Title at
If an Ejectment be
>
will
Staker,
2 Vern,
300.
his
Arthington
Power,
v.
Fawkes,
v. Gar-
PREVENTION OF FRAUD.
an Injunction
be granted
will
133
but unless an
';
will
not
lie
against a
Courts of Equity
interfere,
in
many
cases, to
restrain a
is
is
it
it
tion
An
interfere'.
Injunc-
Farm,
i'rom
breaking up
Meadow
On
the same
for the
purpose
Covenants
Principles, an
Injunction has
for a longer
a breach of an express
troverted mischief
Where
there
is
Covenant, or an uncon-
'.
it,
" in a grossly
Sir
Wai.
g.
would be
Pulteney
v.
is
in
possession,
unhufbandlike man-
a right of re-entry
in
See
Collins and Plumb,
1G Ves. 45-i.
f
Lord G/ey <le Wilton y.
Saxon, G Ves. 10G.
g
Onslow v.
,
1G Ves.
173.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
134
the
lie,
when executed,
Lease,
an Injunction will
performance
specific
It seems, that
even
if
no
right of
Entry was to be
will in
all
breaches of Covenant,
would
interfere
by Injunction
afterwards attempts to
in the
same
place,
Good Will of
by damages,
a Trade, and
set
an Injunction,
An
it
seems,
maybe
obtained
lie
to
11
restrain
one
b
.
stat.
office,
5 and 6 Edvv. 6
against
lies
making an
a
ill
Bond
And such
c
.
Such an Injunction,
lb. 73.
See Cruttwell
Ves. 342.
*
464.
Injunction
oc-
chase of an
the
many
Bhmchard
v. I.ye,
v. Hill,
17
2 Atk.
Harrington
Chatel,
against
Du
Bro. C. C. 124.
a
Durston v. Sandys, 1 Vern.
411. S. (. 2 Ch. Cas. 180. S. ('.
2 Ch. Rep. 398.
PKEVLNTION" Or
the Spiritual
Representative to
But,
And
'
at
these
Law
per-
petual Injunctions
junction
135
IT.AL'D.
file
it
is
Hill to
'.
it
a perpetual Injunction
never entertained by a
is
in the Bill,
cumstances stated
sity of the
Law s
Court of
The
stituted.
principles
6.
now be
persons,
Actions
at
;
Bills
considered.
Bills of Peace.
may be
different
Person
controverted bv various
times,
will,
and
by
different
thereupon, prevent a
is,
'
of this kind
is
* Beversliam v. Thringhold ,
Ch. Cas. 80.
Yid. the case mentioned in
Morgan v Scudamore, 2 Yes.
Jun. yo.
a Bill
v.
Shelbury,
EQUITY JURISDICTION,
13(3
attempts to
litigate the
of
cases,
by
all
the
them
in
the
Bill, preferred
by some
or
re-
11
and between
their Tenants,
for in
these
there,
Plaintiff
and Defendants'.
who had
Corporation of York,
cised that right, but
constantly exer-
dif-
was admitted,
to establish the
Law
it
k
.
In this case,
it
is
caused the
for a
to
be indicted
made
before
h
See Lord Bath v. Sherwin,
Precedents in Ch. p. 262.
Breach
and upon
Lord Hardwicke
to stop
PREVENTION OF FRAUD.
137
Defendant had
the
and
applied
in this
the
to
case, if
Attorney
is
grounded on a Civil
grants
lie,
a noli
prosequi.
make an
vi et
;
but
I may
"Supposing
where
entries
brought
was
Land
had been made, and the Bill was
it
and
of
after that
which
of a double nature, as
is
is
it
partakes
of a
interpose.
the
restrain
Sessions,
order
till
Plaintiffs
may
from proceeding
at
the
."
Such
a Bill
may be brought
against a Lord, as by a
by Tenants
as well
"; as,
m Conyers v. Lord
Abergavenny, 1 vol. Atk. 2S5.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
13S
be paid by
all
Such
and
>':
or,
Bill
where several
So,
Common,
or for using
the
the
like
at
said,
it
was
in
r
the nature of a Bill of Peace, and was proper
brought onjy
who
dealt in those
but because a
Comp.
Craves.
Lionel
Pilkington's
Case in the Duchy Court,
cited, 1 Bro. 40.
p
it
was
Sir
v.
q
Meureit v. Eastwicke, 1
Verh. 200. 1vol. Eq. Cas.
Abr. p. 79. pi. 2.
r
Pawlet v. In grey, 1 Vern.
308, 1 vol, Eq. Cas. Abr. p.
71). pi. 2.
PKEVENTIO.V OF FBAUD.
suffer
such
make
distinct
no
privity
It has
Peace
Bills,
130
Bill
have an
t;
would be,"
daries of
said
all
Lord Thurlow,
t;
He
of
to try the
It
Boun-
It
enjoyment
who claims
of a Party
of,
contradiction to a public
in
Highway, or a common
would be to enjoin all
the People of England". Where, therefore, a Bill
was brought to be quieted in the possession of an
right, as
a right to
Navigable River;
for that
Rope,
with a view, as
was
it
insisted, to avoid
does not
is
in nature
lie to
of an
be quieted
Highway.
A Bill
session of a
Common;
nature: this
is
lies
Rope:
Highway; and
a Bill
in
to be
the possession of an
but that
is
of a different
' Harrison's
CIi.
1 vol. p.
127.
s
Parish of St. Luke, Old
Street, u-uiust the Parish of St.
Leonard, Shoieditch,
Bio.
40.
'
Id. ibid.
Miti'ord's
Heading?, 120.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
140
remedy
for
Nor can
him
at
Law
right
Navigation
there
is
proper
w ."
the
Manor
Turves
in
of A.
the
(of
Manor of
cut
as to the right
to
" This
upon
this
improper,
Bill is
is,
ing
the.
and the
Bill is preferred
by
all
common
all
parties
Interest,
name of
rested, or a determinate
number
in
the
into,
and
note.
HI
PREVENTION OF FRAUD.
themselves and the rest
Bill of this
the possession
the right
till
Law
but
Premises, or a per-
in a case
be quieten in
tried at
is
in the
and
may
where
when
amended
ticular
and therefore
right,
it
was deficame to an
it
in
that par-
z
.
Bill of this
to prevent
were Trials
Court,
to sell,
at
Bar
especially
if
they
c
.
devised to be sold,
and a
7 Harrison's
124.
Ch.
vol. 1.
p.
v.
Ando-
Vera. 266.
Lord Bath
Prec. Ch.201.
after two
P.
Wms.
Ewelme Hospital
ver, 1
If a Trust Estate be
Bill is
it
v.
and
Sherwtn,
S. C. as it
072.
b
Bates v.
Jun. 293.
c
See
1 Str.
P.
Graves,
Wms.
404. and
217.
Coker
Wms.
563.
v.
2 Ves.
671. S. C.
P. C.
Farewell, 2 P.
Bro.
EQUITY JUSISDICi'ION.
142
Trials the
tion
Court
will
c
.
It
comprehend
seems,
it
Law s
interfere
Party
the
leave
all
on a
Bill
his
to
of this
remedy
at
it
will not,
kind, but
Common
7.
Bills of Interpleader.
Bailment*,)
is
resorted to,
some measure
Law, in cases of
knowing to
whom he ought of right to render a Debt or Duty,
apprehends injury from claims made, (a mere
claim is a ground of Interpleader,) by two or more
ing no right in the subject, and not
Interests,
The
Bill
the
states
'
so
that the
Leighton,
1
Vem.
292.
Ray
et
MS,
Lowther
Langston
v.
al,
v.
Boylston,
Ves. 109.
l
Dungey
Juu. 310.
may
interplead,
whom
such claimants
that
v.
Angove, 2 Ves.
PREVENTION OF FRAUD.
Plaintiff
Money
(if
Court
and
13
may
.should also
tiff
by
offer to brin^
his Bill,
the
such offer
made by
not
is
the
Bill,
to
whom
the
Money
the
canst.',
have
fendants
to belong
till
to restrain
the right
motion
may
for
is
determined.
".
But,
it
usual
And
in
support of the
Money
into
Injunction,
Court
when
Deputy Register
In the Exchequer,
k
In Thanet v. Patterson,
laniard, 247. the Bill was
held not to be an Interpleading Bill, because it did not
contain ah offer to bring the
Money into Court; see 2 Ves.
Jun. 109. Langston v. Boylston.
In strictness perhaps it
ground of Demurrer, Mit.
is
Tr.p.vl2CL
2 Anstr. 531. in note, and
3 Anstr. 7U8.
the
till
he
though there
certificate of the
'
in
be read
some
at
are
or Suits in Equity,
must be prayed
Injunction
form
',)
DeLaw,
If the
14
commenced Actions
of the party
an
Money
v.
gey
v.
Angove and
other*.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
144
is
a Bill for
to
Such
Motion of course
is
it
has in the
filing
by the
must be made
there
it,
Plaintiff, that
by Fraud
an
Affidavit
ness, affords
way
to
If the Affidavit
Prosecution
to be false
is
is
security
filed at his
Bill
but
but he need
own expence*..
in strict-
The more
to the Bill.
ground
is
own
Bill
If no such Affidavit
usual
upon the
to the Bill, or
for a
is false,
Demurrer
the Party
liable
is
to a
2
;
but
it
if there
which
in
and
in a case
the Bill
a
.
Bill
v.
that there
* JHit.
v.
some
Metcalf
Harvev.
*
v.
is
TV. 126.
Angove.
* 2 Ves. Jun. 304. Dungey
Angove,
PREVENTION OF FRAUD.
capable
person
shew
of interpleading,
that there
such
is
must
It
whom
to interplead, claims a
and
must
rerum
also
shew,
seeks to
it
right,
may demur:
it
in
a person
compel
145
otherwise
him; the
other,
of Interpleader c
to
rights they
mur
shews no right
interplead, whatever
If the Plaintiff
may
to
may
Defendant
claim each
de-
d
.
Such
Bill lies
liable
to
his
Husband
is
Woman, of which
Married
differences arise
Rent.
in
which the
tract,
it is
uncertain to
a Bill
whom
Interpleader
ot'
payable,
is
may
file
Tenant cannot
file
to be paid,
it is
But
1 Ves. Sen.
249. Metcaif
v.
Hervey.
c
.
Mitford's Treatise, p.
VOL.
I,
12&
v.
but where
Landlord, on
lb.
Anjjove-
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
146
by a
notice of an Ejectment
title
under a
stranger,
But
f
.
this
directed an Action
to be brought
signees,
and
to
by the As-
Lord Thomond's
filed by Tenants,
in
So,
was
and
subsequent
the
to
If a Guardian
he could never
up a Title to
gests by his Bill,
sets
himself,
that the
Case and so
I will
not say
Ibid.
v.
9 Ves. 107.
Williams.
v.
v.
v.
De-
Cowtan
v.
lb.
1 Ves. Sen. 349.
Hervey.
Metcalf
PREVENTION OF FRAUD.
to be
fendant, praying
right,
to interplead,
hojder
may
first
may make
Suit
file
J7
Plaintiff in the
the
in order
meresla/cc-
may Agents
Captures".
for
Where
Person and
Infant,
prochein
will,
same thing, or
for the
where several
Amys
Case of an
in
the same
for
by the same
by several
the Court
thing,
in all
but one
except
in
Cases
these
says
for,
Lord
has a right to
and, accordingly, he
in a
would not
stay proceedings
had been
Bills
filed for
the
being a contrivance
Bill,
its
p.
Modus
7. might be
the Rector of Market Bos-
praying that a
of
dismissed
**.
Prec.
Reg.
Edition.
m 6 Ves. 418.
p.
78. last
Aldridge v.
MesniT.
See 9 Ws. 73. Suttons v.
Earl of Scarborough, where
thv Pleadings, auch a Bill
is
Ambler
103.
Gage agains*
Bulkt'lv.
p
q
lb."
12
EQUITY JURISDICTION
14S
If
on a
directed
of Interpleader,
Bill
the Suit
may
the Defendants
Fund
and
in Court";
the Plain-
if
proceed without
is
if
properly instituted,
Costs, out of the
there be no fund
in
Costs
may be given
is
entitled to his
is
is
If an Interpleading Bill
the Plaintiff
still
Law
Trial at
it
Court,
who
oc-
as between
v
.
Justice
v
,
may on many
of Interpleader
sorted to; but the Court does not look very favour-
ably upon
himself unwilling
to
allow new
inventions,
in
*.
Bills of Certiorari.
by a Defendant
a
,
prayed
in a suit in
such
as the Courts
Anonymous.
2 Bro. 149.
against Thompson.
c
Ves.
of Equity in Counties
Aldrich
419. Aldrid^e y.
Mesner.
9 Ves. 10S. Cowtan v. Wilhams, and the case in note.
by the Plaintiff,
iu the inferior
Court, Jacob's Ch, Prac. 1 vol.
080.
pttEVCNTJON OF FRAUD.
Palatine
b
,
14$
Cambridge, and
two
Vnicersitics of
Courts of the
the;
'
Oxford and
of London,
Citij
is
suggestion, either
of the
or the
Court, or
Inferior
Age
its
Jurisdiction, and
live,
to attend
are.
or the dis-
or Infirmities,
such Inferior
there,
and that
for
is
This
Bill
may
Answer, or even appear to the Bill, and consequently it prays no Writ of Subpoena*
1
When
on Motion, and
that the Bill
by
for
and
is
ferior
will
it
a Certificate
is filed,
the
Certiorari
Writ prayed
there
When
the Order
is
passed
in
it,
Dougl.
Bond
is
entered into,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
r
l )0
by the
Register,
before the
Writ, which
is
after the
return of the
returnable
Upon
after its
a motion
is
made
to
file
the
thereupon be ordered to be
the proceedings removed.
Plaintiff's
own shewing
filed,
If
which
Writ,
it
together with
appears by the
him in
in the Billjiled by
risdiction of
may
Motion
removed after which
obtain an order on
which the
When
filed
are necessary,
suggestions
they must
mined by the
Defendant
lish
the
if
the Court
in
be
will
is
anything
Plaintiff,
the
for
Testimony.
An
Examiner
to attend
for the
and
The
if
he
PREVENTION OF FRAUD.
IjI
the Court
report, to
Bill cannot,
re-
make such
proofs
may be
by an Affidavit of the
Petition supported
or a
obtained on a Motion
Circumstances.
witnesses,
Cer
tiorari Bill,
which
is
may be
to
him
are
and
the Judge
applied
Writ directed
Bill
to
for,
proceed
in a
is
suggestions in such
Ii
upon
Bill.
make
a Decree, or
Court
be
to
Court sends
send
it
determined
it
back
they think
and
may
sometimes the
and
v,
fit,
Stephenson
brought
the hearing
if
is
EQUITY JURISDICTION
152
9.
The
dislike
of"
because, the
Bills,
use.
by
is
not affected
Lord
not amount
joined
The
to Perjury at
f
.
Plaintiff's Title to
Bill
the
desirous
is
of acquiring evidence, the Interest in the Defendant, to contest the Title of the Plaintiff in the
yond Sea
h
,
s
,
or are be-
examined
to be
whereby the
to,
but the
examined,
is,
Plaintiff is in
The
Bill
ought
f
Cann v. Cann, 1 P. Wms.
569; and see what is said by
C. Bar. Parker, 2 Eq. Abr.
402.
6 The
plaintiff will not be
allowed to examine witnesses
de bene esse, because they are
going to the East Indies, if
they are his servants, and he
might keep them at home,
Bunb. 320. Com. Dig. Tit.
Chancery R,
PREVENTION' OF FRAUD.
nesses are to be
investigated in a Court of
Law,
material witness
is
by
likely to be lost
Realm
is
that before an
or
the evidence
their testimony
153
may
'.
Death,
Commission
if
should pray no
shews cause
to the
is
but the
contrary within
Bill
fourteen
is filed,
Bill,
shew
If the Defendant
other Relief.
is
cause,
in
his
of a
Commission
if
and that
Motion
or
If they reside
against those
who
are Parties to
it,
and
all
those
was preferred
1
See as to this Mitford's
Pleadings, p. 51.
m 2 vol. Com. Dig. 291.
Cited Prac. Reg. 31.
n
Seethe opinion of the
Judges in the case oi* the Ban-
examine de novo
EQUITY JURISDICTION,
134
who are
alive,
and
who were
but
upon
are
necessary, and
are either
that they
dead,
they ought to be
if
possible) or so aged
is
gone
that there
Having
or, in
a moral impossibility
in
Chief
the Wit-
or that
to a great- distance
is
Examination
to
a word,
have an
r
.
of this nature,
it
first,
as to the
Interest
title
to the
thing in
question, or
Tenant
file
it
in Tail in
such a
Remainder, nor
v,
p. 335.
in Tail, for
r
2 Ves. 337. and see what
Ch. Bar. Parker says, 2 Eq,
Abr. 402,
PREVENTION OF FRAUD.
a present
want of
Interest'.
155
It
Witnesses
v
Lunacy
to a will
but a vested
Interest,
of
to his
though the
least
preserve Testimony
w
.
offering to pay
what
is
justly
due
And Lord
*.
in
cases,
where
to perpetuate
Testimony,
as in Waste,
Insurances, after
Commissions
in
many
to a penalty,
It
Allan
and Allan, MS.
loVes. 130.
w Dursley v.
S. C.
v.
6Ves.
Fjtzhardinge,
2lil.
v.
lb.
1
JHS.
y.
Green,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
15(3
"Hay ward *,
that he
perpctuam
tions in
Common,
things as right of
Such
prove a
a Bill will
till
death of
d
.
So
will
it
at
filed against
after
dants might
Water
a Recovery at Law h .
lie,
Law
the
after
brought
the East
India
as
where
Company
Commission
to
in India,
discover
trivial
examine Witnesses to
examine witnesses
or
be performed
to
is
or of Ways,
to
lie
Modus dccimandi
&c. which
mise,
rei
by what
authority
the
was held
it
not be supported
f
;
was committed by
in the former case,
whom
Action brought, a
that before an
Bill
but in
Trespass
Where lands
are devised
by
will,
and there
is
no
Law,
such a
it is
Bill as
a very
common
this, against
will,
practice to
the Heir at
Law
file
;
for
Vern.
last
Edition, p.
812.
b
v.
lb.
p. 308. Paulet
Jnorev.
c
1 Yern. 184. Somerset v.
Fotherby,
Com. Dig.
tit.
Chancerv,
R.
e
Bro. 469. Mordalay
1
against Morton.
f
lb. 470. Mordalay against
Morton,
PJ1EVENTI0NT OF FRAUD.
siastical
Court
3k57
Lands thereby devised. The Defendant having appeared and answered a Bill for this purpose,
the parties proceed to Issue as in other cases, and
the
all
the Witnesses,
them
if
or proves
as are
dead,
Commis-
sion, Interrogatories
it
after-
Court, and
dence
in
Law
Courts of
and Equity
is
a right of
Bill are
too general,
trans,
in the
must
set
With
respect to
sufficiently descrip-
Demurrer
will hold
same manner
out in a Declaration
respecting
at
as
Law
it
h
;
et
ought to be set
'.
is
desirous
Law of Evidence.
Teak's Evidence, p.
Gilb.
p. 19.
SO.
h
1 Ves. jnn. 449. Cresset v.
Milton, S. C. 3 Bro.C. C. 48L,
dell v. Uuwvaid, 1 Vern.
312,
'
EQUITY JURISDICTION
1;33
may
arise
out of such
Bills,
and
Plaintiff wishes to
which the
be
it
who were
Plaintiffs,
mainder
Infants,
in Tail, after
by those who
were the seventh and eighth in Remainder, on
the ground, that their Interests were too remote
to justify their being made Defendants, was
others in Remainder, a Demurrer,
overruled
'*
by
who
to descend
and
first
was not
illegitimate
versioner should
mony
" that
in
am
file
marriage was to
"
his"
Mother
a Bill to
and he as Re-
perpetuate testi-
Recovery and
destroy
the
Reversion, and
As
to
the
v.
is
Fitzhardinge.
not,
and
for the
infirm,
it
purpose of
MS.
PREVENTION OF FRAUD.
this Bill, considered old, unless
of age
he
159
is
seventy years
esse,
and that the Witness was upwards of sixty years old, and greatly afflicted
with the Gravel .
lived in
Virginia,
With
respect to
Court of Lav,
it
a previous investigation in a
may be
impediment
Law p
of this kind,
it is
there
is
no
who may
if
to the
unless where
Demur-
observed, that a
die before
Law.
Witnesses, on such a
a purchaser without
Bill, to
at
Law
will
q
;
has
and
in
Law.
at
On
these grounds,
is filed
it
"^
Ambler,
G5. *Fitzhugh
against Lee.
lb.
p
Carew, BrantUin
v.
Ord,
Atk. 571.
" 1 Vera. 354. Bechinell v.
Arnold.
1
lb.
'
Vern. 441.
Parry
v.
Rogers.
Prec.
C'h,
EQUITY JURISDICTION .
-
1<?(?
Defendant
after the
is
commission
is
w
not examine ariy Witness
Where
a Bill
is
its
make such
taxed Costs
his
own
but
as to the
by makes use
if
is
he examines Witnesses of
is
not,
it
seems, entitled
to his costs*.
10.
Every
less,
and
Bills of Discover?/.
a Bill of Discovery
to
an answer,
Bill requiring
which
that title
employed merely
is
for the
but the
is,
more or
Bill here
peculiarly given,
Discovery of
meant,
is
a Bill
facts In the
knowledge of the Defendant, or of Deeds or Writings, or other things, in his custody or Powerj
but praying no
or merely
is
said in
v. Pilkingtort, 1
Mayor of York
Atk. 284.
v
Clifton v.
1 Atk. 610.
Orchard. The case in 2 Atk,
107. is not now the rule.
Foulds
v.
y\
Midgley, 18Ves.
138.
x
1 Sen. and Lefn 317.
* See 1 Ero. C. C. 471.
1'REVENTION OF FRAUD.
1^1
is
Jurisdiction of
This Bill
Foreign Court
if
necessary,)
enable
to
the
Jurisdiction
on Oath
but,
Discovery
Chancery
it
';
it
nor will
c
.
This
of proceedings in Chancery,
of procuring Evidence
11
And
is
it
observable,
upon
required,
is
equitable
circumstances, a
demand; and
in
lie for a
legal
Bill is retained,
The
Bill
Discovery
or
states
is
Defendant
in
subject,
the
f
.
*
Mitf. 150. n. 1. and see
2 Anst. 467.
J
Ld. Mouutague v.Dudinan,
2 Ves. 398.
See also
d
Lord Montague
man, 2 Vi s. 398.
VOL.
I.
v.
Dud-
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
lu:
With
accompany
respect to affidavits to
Bills
where
a Party
it,
for
he
as
he
is
loss of the
on the
the Discovery
it
1
Vera. 247. Godfrey v.
Turner. See also 2 P. Wins.
546. Whitchurch v. (folding,
and the cases there cited,
Anon. 2Atk. 17; and see ante
and
this
immaterial', or where
appears, there can be
be brought
for
writings in
the discovery of a
24.
h
Anonymous,
seems to adopt
the case, inPrecedentsin Chanlie
is
a discovery
no remedy,
Where
Deed
Deed
stated,
Abr.
p. 550.
204.
PREVENTION OF FRAUD.
pertinent,
and
where the
Bill
or
is
stated
by the
not enforced
therefore
avers that an
1G3
action
effect in
is
Law
but
brought,
of the case
he
entitled to a
is
an intention to bring
down,
who are
to state
action
but
'";
is to
stances as
taken to
it
file
such circum-
but stating
an action
to
of them
n
.
these Principles,
to a Bill
sufficient certainty,
by
has a right
Defendants,
the
against
Upon
was allowed,
whom
some
or
Demurrer
alledge with
of an
action,
were payable
3 Bro.
an action should he
brought previous to a bill of
discovery in support of an
action, Mordaly v. Moreton
and East India Company, 2
that
(he
bilities
whom
Persons against
the
was prayed
in
in aid
If the Bill
had
S. C. 1 Bro. C. C.
4G8.
m In Finch v. Finch, 2 Ves.
294. it was said a Bill of discovery does nut lie to create
evidence for a future cause;
but see 1 Bro. C. C. 409. q.
2 Dick. G52.
n
8 Ves. 404. Mayor and
Citizens of Loudon v. Levy,
8 Ves. 398. lb.
Dick. 34.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
Iu4
that
stated,
managed
by reason of combination,
that
action,
been so shaped
It has
of,
p.
what Deed he
is
disinherited,
dant
may
Plaintiff
is
not Heir
by
his Bill, he
it
his
the Defen-
seems,
9
.
lb.
Newman and
LordThurlow seems
doubt whether he had determined that case rightly,
143. But
to
if
*8Ves. 405.
which
entitles
him
to
call
has a
on which he founds
Law
at
right to a discovery,
claim
no need
farther,
in
Discovery of Writings,
call for, a
might have
it
nor can he
Entail
be an account
to
was so
not bring an
Plaintiff could
the
it
it
may
involve
him
other cases.
a Plaintiff
states himself to be Heir or
Administrator of a person
dead intestate, and in that
character seeks a discovery
from a person in possession of
cial
to
in
if
PREVENTION OF FRAUD.
TheTitleof an Heir,
is
of a Peer disinherited
he,
it
Will
nor
is
the
way which
Deed
in Tail
right,
an Heir
such an In-
no
in part
*;
in
if,
contradiction
title";
speak-
but
if
the
that
right, generally
Defendant's
claims,
Tail;
'm
Court, as
the
no answer to an Heir
is
terest in
is
It
in Tail has,
deed,
cannot
MJj
whom
it
will ap-
the Defendant
is
Rep.
p.
36
liut it
of consideration
is
deserving
be
whether
to
which
"
Shaftsbury
Lord
A; row smith, 4 Ve. 71.
See 13 \
lb. 25*^.
es.
251.
-and
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
\66
barely knows
must
state
and
how
believes is
the fact
is
Defendant pleaded he
by the Deed.
If the
was a Purchaser
valuable consideration,
Where
would be
it
for
different
and
of the
Births,
y
,
a Plaintiff having
no right
So
notice of a Sequestration*.
it
lies for a
after
disco-
It
Plaintiff's
Execution
was expired
and
to discover to
whom
or not A ;
he has assigned*.
But
he being a
f
.
Deacon, 1 Ves.
Stroud
v.
the note.
y Ivy v. Kekewick, 2 Ves.
679.
z
Rennison v. Ashley, 2 Ves.
jun.
*
Simmonds
v.
Atk. 289.
Lord Kin-
8 Vin. Abr.
536.
e
Tothil, 71.
PREVENTION OF FRAUD.
Plaintiff
and Defendant 6
or
\G~
a Bill
dit
may
So,
impowered
be
lies
it
by
no plea
to bring a
Lord of a Manor
and, as
to
such
it
seems,
in a
proper
is
It lies to
''.
Party
Limitations
of
are elapsed
under the
stat.
of the
a
or
by the Patentee of
and
for
the
Action of Assumpsit
Bill
was held
the Plaintiff
to
or Ship's
fire
Crew,
whom
such a
Bill
Plaintiff to bring an
was brought,
Action
lor
to enable
damages
his
the
goods
man \
Hard.
"
'
180.
Ch.Rep.
14.
Bunb. CO.
Tothil, 202.
Bunb.
18.
Fonblanque's Treatise of
Equity, 2 vol. p. 4S1.
Sir John Heathcoate v. Sir
John fleete, 2 Venn. 442. la#t
'
'
equity JuntSDiciioir.
168
It has
Son against
if a
Bill
is
brought by
it
is
entitled
Mortgage
"
Law,
an Action to be brought at
Deeds,
as auxiliary to
at
said,
will not
will not
is
such a discovery."
way
to
new
to
have
and uneasiness
Such
ought not
in Families*.
A discovery
the Course of
Chancery
Judgment
LawV'
discovery
in order to
So, a Bill
make
maybe
their
filed against a
Pomfret.
*
Ventris, 198.
Ford
Judgments
v.
Peer-
available
Bankrupt and
31
his
Earl,
MILVCNTIOS OF FRAUD.
Assignees to discover
employed
fraudulent Bankruptcy,
A. obtains
If
Judgment
he may bring a
IC'9
it
Execution
against
15.
and takes
Defendant or any
Personal Estate of
Years
for
Tenants
7
.
And
re-
may be
an Extent
liable to
subject.
mere Bailee
would be no
in obliging
it
Any
to explain,
was pledged,
wise,
him
difficulty
set
title to lie in
it
there
Court of Equity
which
in possession
to think otherwise,
and
Lord Rosslyn
in a
Person
may
King
v.
file
in possession as
Martin,
2 Ves.
1
Balch v. Wast all, cited by
Mr. Vernon, 1 P. Wins. Rep.
see also 1 Vern. 301).
445
;
Toth. 281.
make
'.
Tepant, or other*
641.
bniitliier v. Lewis.
Law
b
3 Yes. 220. Strode v.
Blackhurne, see also 1 Vern.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
170
though he
is
So such a
wrong doer
against every
no
Interest
at
a sum
Counsel
may be obliged
which he had stated to his own
Person
in the
So
Case
and the
opinion,
for his
stated
facts
e
.
an Executor or Administrator
Testator
came
for a
Prisage
is
Law,
but in
So
sum
to discover a Case,
discovery of Goods,
certain, Interest or
body
against
this
case
Goods of the
to his hands'.
discovery of
due g
Wine
King,
though he
if false
Such
is
is
h
.
lie
to
compel a Purchaser
Plaintiffs Title, to
affect
his
Rule'."
1 Ves. 248.
Metcalf
Harvey,
d
2 Vein. 71G.
e
Stanhope v. Roberts,
Atk. 214.
Ch. Ca. 220.
Hard. 138.
'
v.
lb.
PREVENTION OF FRAUD.
171
same protection
gagee
may
On
k
.
entitled
is
ground a Mort-
this
is
an exception in
a discovery
".
Nor
ing a Formedon,
.
lie
to
a Praecipe on a Voluntary
to
will
without
Conveyance".
but to
';
it lie
But such a
who
is
purpose of bring-
for the
there
for
to discover
ways
are
know
to
it
Action of Dower p
does not
lie in
siastical Court,
or in a
Nor does
it lie
make him
Sweet against
It
to discover
party
a.
As where
is,
Southcote,
sup-
lie in
the PlaintifTfor
v.
Toth. 84.
Hard.
Dun v.
Abr.
131).
Cotes,
him
Clark,
Derby
to
a Bill".
to
Lowther
C. C. 66.
against Carlton, 2 Atk. 139,
242. S. C. temp. Talbot, 186.
Barn. 358.
'Senhouse v. Earl, 2 Ves.
450.
'"
Williams against Lamb,
3 Bro. 264.
" Sherborne v. Clark, 1 Vern.
273. Stapletonv. Sherrard, lb.
p. 213. S. C. Eq. Cas. Abr. 76.
Stapleton v, Sherrard, 1
2 Bro.
capable of
is
want of being
enforcing a Discovery
whether
Case of Partition
Duke
Ves. 205.
2 Ves. 451
Atk. 289.
of Atliol,
and Anonymous,
'
Chancey
2 Atk. p. 393,
v.
Tahourdin,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
172
by the Defendant,
up
filed a Bill
of Discovery to clear
Evidence
the
at
was given
in
for
of the
effect
Trial,
Letter
So
l
.
in
paid in part of an
Account
for
Law, and
Money was
at
"you come
said,
J*
made
and therefore
*;
Demurrer was on
in
where
Bill
was
of an Action, a
aid
this
Law
at
in the Bill
voir dire
1
So, a Witness to
p. 170.
w
Wych
a Will cannot be
Meal, 3 P. Wins.
310t Anon. 1 Vera. 117. and
see Le Texier v. Margravine of
Anspach, 15 Ves. 159.
1
See Fluinmer v. May,
"
if
vol.
T
by the Plain-
called against
as a witness
v.
Plumrner
Finch v.
Finch, 2 V>s. 493. Whitworth
v. Davis, 1 Ves. and Bea. 549.
Jun.287 see
v. May, 1 Ves.
;
also
42(5.
PREVENTION OF FltAUD.
made
a Party, unless
is
merely to
impeached
is
But
by fraudulent practices.
as obtained
It
173
fully
it'
\
not
but to
all
kinds
may
discovery that
tion for Felony
of Scandal
sation
a
,
c
,
or to
% or
or
him
subject
answer what
to
e
;
is
to a
nature of a penalty
a Prosecu-
to
a matter
legal
accu-
to a penalty,
or Forfeiture
but
if
fendant must
then
ought
-all
to be
by
discover
those
who
';
but
the
De-
the waiver
if
the penalty
is
not sufficient
'.
But
if
Bill
;
Pearson against Pearson,
IBio. 293.
1
Cartwright v. Green, 8 Ves.
408.
b
See Franco v. Bolton, 3 Ves.
370.
c
Finch v. Find), 2 Ves. 492.
f Bishop of London v.Fytche,
I
Bn>. <j.s. Exparte Symes,
II Ves. 525. Mayor, &c. of
London v. Levy, 8 Ves. 405.
"Harrison v. Southcote, 1
v.
South-
cote,
v.
'
Vern.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
17-i
dieting penalties
in
such case he
is
bound
to
answer.
Barrister
ings he has
Cause
is
seen, nor
as Counsellor';
but
if
in a
his
it
revealed under
one not
is
obliged to
was doubted,
the
a Barrister,
condition
if
Answer m
thing were
of
Secresy
to
whether or no he would be
obliged to answer".
to discover
Client
but he
is
whom
and
to
last
to produce
of them
Where
the
dates or
It is said a Trustee
are,
when he
whose custody
in
or discover
produce writings 9
same
but not
contents
to
in
an unlawful or
Answer may
of an Act of Parliament
by
for
their going
on
in
Strange, 1C8.
Bulstrod v. Letchmere, 2
Freeman 5.
n
I Finche's
Ventr. 197.
Gilbert's Eq.
Rep. 82.
S. C.
lb. 5.
m lb.
Rep. 18G,
PREVENTION Or FRAUD.
its
175
Remedial
will also a
own
notions
as if a
made
to be
Trustee
stat.
Trust
only cognizable
is
will
As
law, as
if a Bill is
8
.
titled to a Discovery, a
incumbent on the
according
But where
brought
Demurrer
has been
for a
Discovery
the Plaintiff
is
will lie
only en;
for
it is
to
Plaintiff,
what he has
to
it
Relief,
Relief, in a
and that
Penalty or Forfeiture,
assist a
determined, that
and
in Equity,
compel a Discovery
to
any penal
to evade
a right
pray
to
is
relief,
sequential to the
Injunction,
may be
it
doctrine
covery and
for the
a Plea
prayer
for
that
to
if
Relief,
observe
Bill
not
that
lie
as
modern
if
is
sought
a Demurrer, or
and
see
an
And
the
' Eq.
Ca. Abr. 131. 8 vol.
Vin.Abr.-547.
3Iuckleston v. Brown, G
Ves. 02. Cordon and Simp*
con-
is
discovery,
Demurrer does
useful
is,
Price
310.
"
And
it
against James,
Brandon
v.
De-
seems,
2 Bio.
Sands, 2 Ves.
jun. 514.
x
Sutton v. Earl
y Ve>. 71.
rougfc,
S:urbo-
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
17t>
if
the discovery
Relief, a
auxiliary to the
is
Upon
De-
a Bill
the Defendant
Attorney
entitled to Costs
is
and
but Mr.
Client*;
between
as
Justice
Buller
and goes
to the Discovery,
first
he ought not
to
file
pay Costs
first to
Plaintiff
is
if
the Plaintiff
Men
acting with
Law
In a Case at
the
without trying
Defendant
in justice a right
thereby compelled to
to
to the
Accounts, he has
if
c
,
the Counsel
that he had
a Case,
Law
at
that he
Law ought
Defendant
to allow
in Equity, as
the
Costs
it
would be a good
rule to be adopted.
Forest's Rep. in the Exch.
'
129.
2
is
Simmonds
v.
Lord Kin-
Cartw right
v.
Weymouth
said
and
Grant v. Jackson
Peake's N. Prius, p.
others,
t.
this doctrine.
Hately,
what
2 Ch. Cases and I have
heard Lord Eldon approve
Ves. jun. 423; see also
Boyer,
203.
PREVENTION OF FRAUD.
Defendant puts
If the
in
so that
moment
that the
in
the
in
the
he
may
it
Term
d
,
for
discovery
it is
the
Answer comes
been
taken to
move
Answer
his
is
177
in,
De-
the
ex pence he
the
all
has
at.
Where
sion to
commis-
till
if
his
becomes abated,
therefore, the
it
cannot be revived
Plaintiff
was
feme
Where,
when she
sole
filed
ried,
Suit,
as
this,
for
where such
d
a Bill
the Ans\cer
33.
Chancellor.
31.
v.
so stated
lor,
See
also
Banbury
v.
I.
to dismiss
and
';
in
'
Alpha
v.
Dodson
Woodcock
,9 VeS,
the
one case
Payman,
v.
such a
for
to an
1
Dick.
Juda, 10 Yes.
v.
King, 1 Atk.
io.-}.
VOL.
by Lord Eldon h
Semple, 5 Yes.
by counsel, and
seemingly, assented to by the
Stewart
8G.
a hard de-
want of prosecution
y
was
it
EQUITY JURISDICTION
178
the
hearing,
whether
was,
question
the
Bill
Honor took
is
"
of a dismission being,
cause to
course,
the latter
The Court
seeing no
relieve '."
11.
Bills
The denomination
Quia Timet.
Quia Timet was
of Bills
Writs
at the
Common Law;
for as
be maintained quia
timet, before
his
1.
Lord Coke
Law,
A Man
may have
Warranlia
2.
before he be impleaded
cJiartce,
may
that
any molestation,
3.
4.
An
5.
closure; 6.
or molestation.
And
these,"
says Coke,
" be
When
a Person
is
probable,
or
is
bequeathed to one,
after
former
is
use, against
his-
the
PUEVENTIOX OF FRAUD.
may happen
to
179
it
one instance
in the
which may
lead
to
and
it;
in
the other,
will
it,
to guarantee the
Thus,
a Bill
same by
a proper security,
".
in a
was
in
against any
destruction
by
by
filed
Legatee
of a
no
pay the
particular
Money
into the
reasons
the
Money
made
that the
Ten Years
the Plaintiff p
mean
end
left to
one
to
be paid at twenty-four,
lier cases;
see
Ch. Case*
121.
p
Ambl.
stated
N 2
p. 273.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
ISO
though
it
Plaintiff
was
at the
was
not
twenty-four
was decreed,
it
entitled
Daughter
to her Child,
was
filed to
and
Bill
was
upon
Estate
r
.
entitled
-e?*/ 5
the
in default,
if
to have
Bill,
to
left
twenty-one, and
at
such
till
Money
to
at a fixed, or a future,
left to
Contin-
Female
on a
died before to
Court
than
was made,
it
if it
if
should be
produced
3
.
greater Interest
make up
there was not
to
the
the
1
,
Walker
^15,000,
and Cooke, 15
Lord
to be paid at
twenty-one,
Cruze,
"Johnson
v.
De
la
Am b.
580.
PREVENTION OF THAUD.
or Marriage, with Interest in the
if
131
lie
It
Title".
Where one by
will
filed,
Executor has by
his
answer submitted
to
it
the
let
assigned
a Trustee,
to
Annuity \
And where
secure the
trust to
in
and
such
Court has
manner interfered b
where Bills of this description have
in like
Other cases
in
the
Reports.
af-
remainder to C. in
that such a Bill
fee,
was proper
Bro. 58.
w
Browne
against
Dudtf. C. 321.
1
Batten v. Eurnley, 2 P.
Win-, p, 163.
bridge, 2 Bro.
and died:
to
it
compel B.
See Slanning
Wms.
r
3;J. ),(3.
2 Vern. 249.
121.
was
held,
to
3 P.
Noble,
Ch. Cus.
t. Style,
Rous
S. C. 1
pay
v.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
182
all
versioner; although
it
remote Possibility
So, where A. was entitled to the use of Goods
.
and a Library
Plaintiff's
for Life,
who
Wife,
after the
The
validity
of such
a bequest,
death
d
.
as that last
Somen
servation of
a Tenant
Lord
for
life
be
It seems,
to
Tliurlow,
to
only an Inventory,
Bill
it
for if
it
were
filed to
deliver
and Indentures, he
be danger,
up an Apprentice's Bond
more
Where
to
is
at the Master's
choice to stay as
till
the
Hayes
v.
Hayes,
Ch.
Wms.
p. 1.
and
to that effect
Wms.
Abr. 78.
82.
pi. 1.
Hyde and
Parrat,
IP.
Abr.
pi. 2.
S.
C.
Eq.
PREVENTION OF FRAUD.
So, also, the
183
that
bound
for
Debt, although A.
the
since
debt,
it.
is
unreasonable that a
is
Man
lies
h
.
Executor'.
But such
Bill
must be
filed
tor
of the deceased,
unless,
If the
Executor
is insolvent,
on a
Bill
who may
filed,
Money
bring acto
it
Litigation the
danger of being
lost or injured,
Property
and
is
often in
such cases,
in
interpose to preserve
it,
is
in
that purpose.
for
an Ecclesiastical Court
Person dead,
entertain a
the
Litigation
is
Ranelaugh v. Hayes, 1
Vera. 190.
2 Atk. 212. 1 vol. of Fonbl.
Equity, p. 42. in uote.
Elmslie v. M acaulev, 3 Bro.
024.
1
fc
determined 10
'
Utterson
But the
against
Mnir,
4 Bro. t. C. 277.
m iMitford's Pleadings,
122,
123. King and King, (J Vttf.
172.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
181
by appointing a Receiver,
upon the mere ground, that two wills are in controversy in the spiritual Court, and no suggesCourt
Property
in
is
not be secured by an
and can-
danger,
administration pendente
Lite*.
12. Bills
curing them, or
up of
delivering
the
se~
specific
Chattels.
The
when
it
upon Terms
Lord Thurlow seems
p.
to
it
have been
of opinion
would
he,
demurrer,
MS.
name
n
Richards v. Chave, 12 Ves.
Duplessis,
4G2. Knight v.
1 Ves. 324. See on this subject
v.
in the
argued on
13th June,
1812.
of the
the Plain-
618.
Q
See
Hilton
v.
Barrow,
15.
PREVENTION OF FRAUD.
tiff's
name
but
to be erased
185
tins decision
observable
of
for
not on
note did
that the
was
it
the
is
face
it
circumstances
before
8
:
and
in
Lord Thurlow
which on the
face of
it
appeared
to
',
cited
a note
be good, was
There
is
no instance,
it
delivering
it
at
be
to
Lord
void*.
was of opinion,
others,) always
that a
Court of
Deed
to be delivered up,
remains
it
it
in other
may
hands
2
;
be affected by
it,
if
Where
and Instruments
does, there
'
is
3 Bro. C. C.
Vid. arg.
15.
in
Jackman
v.
'3 Bro.CC.
v
T
JaC
k nan
r
tiv
J J Ves. o5.
,
'
Franco
19.
...
v*
* The
Mayor, &c. of Coltester v. Lowton, 1 Ves. and
Bta - 244 Hayward v. Dimsdale 17 Ye, 112.
-
Mitchell,
LeCj
5 Ves.
368. But Befi what Lord Eldon
observed of that case in Biomv.
Deeds
to
Bolton,
t>
*"
17 Geo. 3
c.
26
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
186
them
a Jurisdiction to order
but
this is
Deed
be delivered up 1
void on grounds of
is
is
given in con-
dered
always on terms
to
will be or-
it
to
be Particeps Crintinis, as he
a Marriage Brokage
Bond
also, in
is
And
f
.
to secure
the case of
where a
so,
to
Law h
to
decreed to be delivered up
who
will
Bills
lie
to
though
it
was
to a person,
'.
a vexatious use
Court
revocable, to
is
for the
may be made
of
them
k
;
but the
be delivered up
So, contracts
'.
be delivered up
after the
Underhill
lOVes. 218.
v.
I
Horwood,
Byne
v. Vivian,
first
by Byne
Bromley
v.
what is said in
Low v. Harthard, 8 Ves. 135.
u
Seethe decree in Bromley
and Holland, which seems to
have been very carefully drawn
up, 7 Vs,29.
;
and
see
Gray
Lord
v.
St.
John
v.
Lady
St.
John, 1
Ves.
475
believe
'
C.
&
Law
MS.
6 Edw. 6.
v. Law, For. 140. S.
7 Ves. 28.
m Mackreth
'
Wms.
v.
C8. in n. 1.
Marlar,
2 P.
>
PREVENTION OF FRAUD.
A Bill lies
detained; for in
1ST
up of Deeds unjustly
Conveyance
".
made
is
of an Estate with a
one
if
settles
Land upon
his
Daughter
waste",
or not to suffer a
Recovery
',
to
in
commit
the
Bond
Where,
to a Bill
to
Such
to a living,
it
r
.
be ordered to be
will not
delivered
to be
for
delivered
ousfht not to
m Jackson
v.
vex the
Butler,
up,
Plaintiff's
2Atk.
Gilb. Eq. p. 1.
Jervis v. Bruton,
2 Vein.
251.
p
Title;
but
if it
Prec.
Ch. 28.
306.
"
an Instrument that
as
Tutton v.
Mollineux,
Moore, 809. approved 2 Vein.
251. but 6ee Freeman v. Eree-
q Earl
of Scarborough
Parker, 1 Ves. jun. 267.
McNamara v. r
v.
5 Ves. 824.
s
Ex
100.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
3SS
contains in
it,
not to be delivered up
many
validity,
it
ought
though
it
Law
ings at
z
.
for
Life
self
is
satisfied,
it
seems,
may
x
.
successive interests, in
Court
a
been ordered
Remainder-man
a great
Bill
to be deposited in
many
cases
where
secured for
his
benefit,
though an Estate
for
1
Pemberton v. Pemberton,
13 Ves. 298.
v
Ford v. Peering, 1 Ves.
*
Mortlocke v. Buller, 10
Ves. 308. see also 16 Ves, 83.
'See a case of that kind,
Hodgeson
jun. 76.
* Ivie v.
*
Atk. 430.
Ivie, 1
See
Willan
16 Ves. 83.
v.
Willan,
v.
Bussey, 2 Atk.
89.
b
Smith v. Cooke, 3 Atk.
382. Reeves and Reeves,2 Mod,
132.
PREVENTION OF
FilAUD,
189
for Life
and
it
'\
The
cases in
for Life
Son
AH
in
such casr,
there were
the deeds
only,
in Tail
and enlarge
in order to better
e
.
Persons concerned
in
made
Parties
f
.
unless,
Jointure
in a
it,
what
produced
B.
If a Bill
be
shall or
at its
shall not
filed against
be
her to have
Bowles
and
I.ei'r.
Lord
it
v.
Steward,
233
and see
1
1
Srh.
Ye*.
Lempster
against
Lord Pomfret, Anibl. 104.
e
571.
r
Ib.
to the delivering
up of specific
has been holden, that such a Bill will
With respect
Chattels,
may
lAtk.
o>.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
190
some
jie, in
which the
to
chattel,
Piece
1"
;
is
compensation
and of an old
f,
of
silver Altar
an extraordinary
p.
scription
Judgment
in Detinue, the
:
liable to a
value
not
as in the case
Horn
the Pusey
and
PlaintirYis entitled',
and
it is
the
is for
is
recoverable;
Imperfection of the
Law
in
in
Chancery
13.
that
a Bill,
brought
One
it
Bill in
Equity
may
and
still
be
r
.
surety
may compel
another in Equity,
SeeNutbrowne
''
v.
payment of
Thorn-
Pusey
v.
Pusey, 1 Vern.
273.
a debt for
which
33.'
r
Wright v. Hunter, 5 Ves.
792.
* Cook's Case, 2 Freem. 97.
PREVENTION OF FRAUD.
they were jointly bound
cipal
to discharge
is
sureties
v
,
for
the obligations of
all
all
the
in a
191
others, that
if
among
his proportion,
events he
pay
to
is
proportion, which
w
;
but,
in
all
Court
in his favor",
is
and will
decree a perpetual
in
such case,
Injunction,
if
to
called upon,
restrain the
If,
time
7
,
accepts
it y .
composition, or discharges
it
the
Co-sure ty
b
.
'
Toth. 14. 1 Cli. Rep. 34,
1 Eq. C. Abr. 114. ease 9 ;
and see Lloyd v. Mackworth,
Bunb. 138. Collins v. Griffith,
P. Wins. 314.
v
v.
"
Ex
parte Gifford,
Ves.
808.
" Law v. East India
pany, 4 Ves. 833.
'
Nisbit
against
ComSmith,
2Bro.C. C. 583.
'
Skip
v.
Ves.
809. note a. Rees v.
Berrington, 2 Ves. jun. 540.
Nisbit against Smith, 2 Bro.
C. C. 579. and see (> Ves. 809.
a
Ex parte Smith, 3 Bro. C.
C. 1. Ex parte Giffoid,
Ves.
v.
Berrington,
807. Rees
2 Ves. jun. 543,4. Wright v.
Simpson, 6 Ves. 734. Law v.
East India Company, 4 Ves.
S24. Boulbee v. Stubbs,18 Ves.
20.
b
805.
Ex
parte Gifford,
Ves.
feQUITY JURISDICTION
192
If
B.
A.
bound
is
maybe
compelled,
though A.
is
not sued
and
in
c
.
Contribution
Joint
for B.
between the
Estates of a Bankrupt
separate
the
proportion, a debt
its
to the
Assignees
in
been enforced
among
by one, under an
by
Act \
their joint
Where
entire
Court of
among
the
wrong doers
of a Civil obligation
If a Ship
f
.
Expences, as
liable
is
it
may
and compellable
be, the
part-owners are
to contribute
e.
and
Contribution
recovered, either
Action
On
at
Law
the
by a Suit
Ves. 114.
be
Equity, or an
h
.
same
principle,
in
may
if
a Rent-charge
is
Samsun
1 Ves.
v.
Bragington,
443.
h
Abbott on Shipping, 373 ;
and see Hallett v. Bousfield,
18 Ves. 187. Shepherd y
Wright, Sho. Pari. Cas. 18.
TREVi.NTION OF FRAUD.
granted by A. out of
wards
Lands, and he
Lands by Parcels
the
sells
his
all
l'/3
after-
to divers per-
Rent may be
restrained
down
Interest
Profits
shall
;
keep
but that
Estate subject
an
session of
to
Mortgage,
may
Reversioner
a Bill to
file
answer
for
And though
the
Owner
to
for
Life
to
Tenant by
u
of a charge on an Estate,
sumed
'.
the Curtesy,
lets it
the Rents
make
it
will not
be pre-
the remainder-man
n
.
pelled to keep
fraud not
Cary
Abr. 33.
*
to
3. S.
down
keep
it
down
C. 1 Eq. Cas.
Saville v. Saville,
2 Atk.
VOL.
but otherwise, a
Casbome v.
Scarfe, 1 Atk.
COG.
v.
it is
I.
n
Aston v. Aston, 1 Ves.
267 Countess of Shrewsbury v.
Earl of Shrewsbury, 3 Br#.
C. C. 126.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
104
Tenant
in Tail
is
not obliged
keep down In
to
terest
on a Mortgage
but
if
unless he be an Infant
The Tenant
Reversion
''.
for Life
tion of
quent to the
the reduc-
as well as subse-
not
is
now
in force
The
s
.
for Life to
1
.
pay
Mort-
If a
for
Life,
he
bound
is
and
profits
v
.
The
taker of
off
Reversion w
p Chaplin
\Vm*. 235.
See
,;
Though
v.
Chaplin, 3 P.
Ameshury
Browne,
v,
Rediugton,
Ball
and
v.
JJeatty,
Lord Pcnhryn
5 Ves. 107.
*
v,
Hughes,
lb. p. 90.
'
J43.
I
Lord Penhryn
v.
Hughes,
*RLVENTION OF FRAUD.
19")
to
hands
A
will
it
may come
Tenant
*.
for Life,
Estate y
nor
is it
is,
that
any
to take
But although
Tenant
by
for Life
Evidence 1
by Will
man may
oblige
the
Remainder-
first
Lease
for
b
.
held, and
is
it is
Tenant
bute to
a renewal,
Life,
be compelled to contri-
is
the
in
is
only for
This
is
Redington
i Ball
v.
'lb. 142.
Redington,
andJBeatty, 140.
Ile-
lb.
Vern.<566,
o 2
Lock,
LQU1TY JURISDICTION.
196
same
it
would be the
But where
in regard
seems
it
strangers to the
all
who have
Tenant
for Life,
must contribute
toge-
for
by the Will
c
.
it
no such custom
is
renew or not
use,
Tenant
would
b,e
its
for Life
for Life to
Tenant has
renewing
in
for his
own
The Court
the Estate.
or direction,
Tenant
therefore thought of an
much
as
the Tenant
for Life
much
he took
as
of another,
he
by that other
The old, absurd, Rule of throwing one third of
the fine for Renewal, upon the Tenant for Life,
does not now prevail but the Rule now seems
should be paid
for
<l
to be, that
in
proportion
to
always depends
the
benefit
much upon
Ambl. 88.
As in Stone against Theed,
2Bro.C. C. 248.
nison,
a
Nightingale
v.
Bro. C. C. 443;
Bro. C. C. 248.
c
Lawson,
and
see
in
he
his age
takes,
which
e
.
''Supposed to be established
Verney v. Verney, 1 Ves.
428.
Ambl.
88.
Nightingale v. Lawson, 1
Bro. C. C. 440. White v.
White, 4 Ves. 24. on Rehearing, 5 Ves. 554. and on Appeal, 9 Ves. 654.
'
PRHVEN'n'oN OF FRAUD.
Dower, or a Partition.
Dower; but
1!>?
at
to the Principle
as
interfered in cases
first
of"
Recovery of
Widow
f
.
is
the
diffi-
Law, from
the Lands out of which
labours at
is
The Law
relief.
gives her
and
if she
Dower
the mesne
proceeds at Law,
any Mortgage, or
to be
hands,
Equity interposes
Dower
are
is
1
and
affected,
seldom brought
incurred
in
Freem. 20.
See on
1
ford's
is
Dower
his
no limitation
to
and though
at
',
v.
Squire,
Widow
loses
Life-time m , yet
in
Atk. 130.
h
seems,
arrears
it
Law by
hence.,
'
lose her
science therefore
all
out
Munday
v.
Munday,
V. Thorold,
this
subject,
Pleadings,
110,
Mordaunt
Mit111.
Lev. 375.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
19S
Equity,
if
she has
filed
entitled to the
is
Mesne
Profits",
in
The
to have arisen in
VIII.)
one Tenant
which makes
(5 9
Hen.
common
in
The
earliest
Partition
it
is
instance,
however, of a
thought to be
in the
Bill
for*
time of Eliza-
beth'.
In the
become
more ques-
Man
and
his
may be
referred to
Equity
issues
Partition of Estates
Commission of
Court of
Partition, "on
must prove
11
Curtis
C. C. 020.
"Dormer
Atk.
Curtis,
v.
he declares
his Title as
2 Bro.
Sic.
diet.
and
arg.
also the
1
Vern.
421.
v.
Fortescue,
I'-iO.
s
'
Il.irg.
p Tilly v.
Bridge, 2 Vern.
^
519. S. C. Prec.in Ch. 252.
" Wakefield v. Child, mentioned, 1 font*. Eq. p. 158.
in n.
Freem. 2G.
PREVENTION OF F11AUD.
199
Judgment
is
given
That
proved.
much
attended with so
is
difficulty,
Equity,
in
obtained by Bill
And
x
.
been
said,
much
tor
it
a Parti-
has been
is
no
in it,
the va-
Decree
that a
is
a matter of right,
tion is
may be
a commission so obtained,
is
Court of
";
but on
observed, that as a
it is
considered as dis-
are suspicious
the Party
leave
must,
it
appears, state
dants
Judgment for
to obtain a
Partition, the
who
not be divided.
Court
are, together
own
his
On
Plaintiff
The
\ and
Title to a Moiety
Law a
to
will
with
it
would
Agar
v.
Fairfax,
17 Ves.
Jun. 552.
5
Calmady
v.
Calmady, 2
VOL.
I.
Agar
v.
Fairfax,
552. Calmadj
v.
2 Ves. Jan. 570,
O 4
1? Ves.
Calmady,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
200
be to spoil them
made, either by a
Sum
to be
is
11
same, thourrh
be
may
highly inconvenient
e
;
House among
Partition of a
Jointenants, one
up
which
stairs,
were
stairs
not interfere
tion of a
f
;
Cold Bath,
it
is
different
was
was decreed
it
but
Bill
Advowson
would
for a Parti-
So
?.
it is
may come
in every
in
me and
be entitled
where there
case,
if
to be divided
al-
is
otherwise,
Estate
a settled
per-
in
esse,
11
An Infant Joint- ten ant may file a Bill for a Partition, or such a Bill may be filed against him
1
and
it
will be decreed
be respited
Partition
d
P.
till
may
Clarendon
\\
ms.
v.
the Infant
Hornbv,
44(5.
Anou. MS.
Warner against
Baynes,
alluded to in
Barker against Gerard, Ambl.
236.
h
As to Partitions of an Advewson see Budicoute v. Steers,
;
Ambl. 589.
.*'.
<
of age m
is
Bill for
'
Matthews v. Bishop
and Wells, 2 Dick.
1 Dick. 09.
of Bath
052.
'
"'
Lord
Ambl.
PREVENTION OF FRAUD.
201
between Tenants
Under
in
common
ofa Copyhold
commission of Partition
two
missioners, and
to four
Com-
made, one,
different returns
missioners
mode is
With
move
said
to
yet
was
entitled to
five
only
parties'!
now
seems not
hundred
three or four
the Defendant
of both
it is
where the
determined, that
his part
it
have been
to
andthough
up
to
the proper
q.
Plaintiff
Acres,
Com-
to be at the equal
unreasonable doctrine
This
adhered to
expence
Commission and that the costs of issuing, executing, and confirming the Commission
are borne by the Parties, in proportion to the
until the
1 Ves.
and
Baxter
495.
Scott
299.
p
see Corbett
v.
Bea. 551.
n
S.C.MS, and
v.
Knollvs, 1 Ves.
q
r
v.
Watson
Fawcett, 1 Dick.
v.
Duke
Parker
against
Gerard.
Ambl. 237.
Agar v. Fairfax, 17 Ves.
v. Calmady
558, Calmady
s
thumberland,
lb.
EQUITY JURISDICTION".
202
a Modus.
Cross
Bill, against a
not allowed to
is
Modus,
Bill to establish a
demand
file
in the nature of
a Bill to establish
ii
Person
Modus,
disturbed by Pro-
Court
And
1
.
must
the Bill
Modus
Mill be dismissed
It
payments
in lieu of Tythes
A Lessee
tive
establish a
to
Stacks, and
who
Bill for
custom
may make
of a Rectory
has
made
Tythe
a deriva-
and
in kind,
the person
who
is
entitled
is
in
Lease
prayed
at the
time
for otherwise
marshal
by which
his
Debt
is
if
Securities.
a Party has
two Funds
secured, a Person
Fund only
v
Ekins
hav-*
has a right in
v*
Dormer, 3Atk.
534.
w
Yid. Warden, &c. of St.
Paul's v. Morris, 13 Ves. 1(>3.
* Canons of St.
Paul's v.
Crickett, 2 Ves. Jun. 563.
y
130.
rnEVENTION OF FRAUD.
Equity to compel the former
fund,
it'
both,
that
203
is
[f therefore
Crown
the
ditors,
has
Crown by Extent
even against Cre-
been confined
to
such
payment of debts,
for
this
be a ground
to
Bond \
But though,
liable to
if
to
he
may
resort,
in
order that
Security,
that can be
arc
to ano-
to the
-where
Debtor
common
who are not
Much
Debtor.
common
less,
have persons
those
in
who
order
to
to resort
to
the other*.
can claim against
o
v.
Mb.
b
Kempe against Antill, 2
Bro. C. C. 11.
c
EJtpa'rte Kend.aH, 17 Vc~.
&27.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
204
in
which
Court
we now
mitted.
as a general proposition
what
com-
has been
to lay
down
Fraud 4
constitutes
Rules,
how
against
it,
dence of
far
would be crampt
the Jurisdiction
Courts of Justice.
Some
such turpitude,
are of
over them
for
punish
their province to
sorial
f
;
to
It is not
Cases of Fraud
in
in a civil,
affect
The
Courts of Equity
now
and
see
what
effect,
is
in
said to the
Lawley
v.
same
Hooper,
3 Atk. 278.
f
See Walthain
2 Atk.
43.
v.
Broughton,
FRAUD.
owing
20.)
Exe-
into
it
is
deceived
6':
surprize,
all
is
Fraud.
dered as Fraud
brance, that in
all
And
;
consi-
is
worthy of remem-
it is
that
to be considered as
is
trick,
way
remedy does
relief
may
of a Fraud
k
,
"No
of Fraud."
admits of some
committed
is
ought
to
But
general proposition
this
qualification; for
a considerable time
state that,
it
was
waiver of the
* See
des
Pothier Traite
Obligations, Partie 1. chap. 1.
s. 1. Art. 3. s. 3.
h
Garth v. Cotton, 3 Atkyns,
757.
'Garth and Cotton, 3 Atk.
757. and the decree to that
effect, ib. p. 758.
*
liicknell v.
Gough, 3 Atk.
558.
'Pickering and Lord Stamford, 2 Ves. Jun. 280.
m MS. See also
Cottrell v.
Purchase, Forester 00.
and
see Pickering v.
LordStamford,
2 Ves. 280.
n
Purcel
]4
Ves.
Company
3 P.
Macnamara,
Sooth
Sea
and
91.
Wnos.
v.
WymondseH,
243.
Dough
see
also
and what is
030.
Hort,
Gilford and
said in
1 vol. Scho. and Le Froy, Rep.
and in Medlicott v.
400.
and Beatty,
O'Donncll, I
Ml
160.
EQUITY JURISDICTION,
20O
shew
acquiescence
Accounts
dulent manner,
can be used to
it
In*
the
in a frau-
it
But even
will
in a case of gross
Legatees and
against Executors,
length of time,
In
q
.
cases of
all
Fraud which
is
with
Courts of
Law
r
,
Estate,
is
vel
non
and
decided upon
relates to
it
in the shape of an
Real
if
Issue devisavit
of personal Estate,
in
the Spiritual
is
v
;
though
it
exclusively
Court
Parties
Fraud
Court of Law,
s
where
to
as
where
of allegation
cognizance of Fraud
Estate
Wills of personal
to
Bro.
as
Powis
v.
Andrews, 2 B:o n
P.
'
v.
Stephenson
v.
Gavdener s
2 P. Wins. 286.
*
C47.
Ex
parte
Fearon. 5 Ves^
FRAUIi.
807
Land
table Estate in
only triable
claimed,
is
is
properly and
establish a Will
without a
ing an Issue
If,
for
y
.
may
ought
to prevail,
upon an Issue
till
at
Law
it
its
it
if in
the
should be necessary to
appoint a Receiver'.
But though
if a
by
Party
Equity,
And
good
at
Fraud:
it
in
some
cases,
Law, may be
as if
it
him a
aside in Equity
A. should agree
to give
for
B. Bank
that
the
B. should devise
Anon. 3 Atk.
Kelson
70.
v.
17.
Oldtidd, 2 Vein.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
*^08
B. the Bank
Bills,
to be forged,
this
may
Law,
at
Fraud
the
'.
down upon
the subject.
1.
as a
The Rule
of
Law
as to Fraud, is considered
never to be presumed
which
in Equity,
Parties
not so at
Law a
at all,
obtained by Fraud,
it
must
it
will
liable,
b
.
be, in toto
and
be set aside in
Conveyances,
slight
grounds
set aside
they
setting aside
afford a
Trenchard
v.
Wanley, 2 P.
son,
2 Bro.C.
sufficient
ground
b
Goss v. Tracy, 1 P. Wins.
2S8. S. C. 2 V'ern. 700.
C. 164.
d
.
on
veri or
it
if
toto,
Solemn
is
Fraud^ be released,
If set aside
Fraud
been secondarily
that
Principal in a
If the
2.
is
(viz.)
both
for
e
See Myddleton v. Lord
Kenyon, 2 Ves. juri. 408. Lawley v. Hooper, 3 Atk. 281.
d
Davidsou
v.
Russell,
2 Dick. 761. Worseley v. De
and Baseley,
FRAUD.
any Instrument
If
is
whose Rights
known
the Instrument, a
Court of Equity
even gone
farther,
obtained from
will relieve
and have
are
Courts have
set aside
Instruments
their
Parties, ignorant of
Rights,
tised
An Agreement
founded on
Lease,
for
fraudulent
and an
indeed, a
tract,
makes
Man upon
a false representation,
Con-
whether know-
Terms of
Equity
Bargain,
it is
a Fraud,
and relievable
in
'.
If a Person,
builds on
party on his
guard,
such suppression
is fraudulent,
Abr.
*
5.
Anslie
VOL.
v.
I.
and a Court
of the
540. Evans v.
Ves. 174, 183.
Burroughs and Lock, 10 Ves.
475. De Mannnillev. Cromuton, 1 Ves. and Bea. 355*6.
,l
Pelling ,and Armitage,
1
Bro. C.
C.
liicknell,
Medlycot, 9 Vt'*.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
210
Possession,
his
in
though with the complete knowledge of the Landhas been held entitled as against that Land-
lord,
lord, to
shall
the Improvements he
provements on the
faith
would
relieve".
mainder
to his brother
of the entail,
life
seems, Equity
it
makes
on
without levying a
fine,
or
suffering a recovery,
as he
confessed in his
answer,
if
therly
a recovery,
mainder,
A. not knowing
in tail,
a settlement
entail engrosses,
B.
re-
it,
his Bro-
and barred
him
re-
Widow by
granted,
entail
for this
since,
had
Fraud
it
in
B.
in
concealing the
231.
FRAUD.
So, where one
Executrix, and
his
Mother
his
211
made
make
new
Will,
''.
by silence contributing to a
Fraud, has been compelled to remedy the mischief
Upon
this
ground
that
it is,
a Landlord has
Lawn, &c.
which
in a
Release, or
by
obtained
been
Improvement,
Bar-
means,
which, indeed,
may
all
be comprehended
part of that
'Thynev. Thyne,
290
and
as
Vern.
Sale of Land
of articles,
and suppression
prill-
150.^ Draper
and Borlan,2 Vern. 370. Comcealment of an Incumbrance,
Ihbotson and Rhodes, 2 Vern.
554. Concealment of a Mort-
of an entail, p.
gage.
'
Jackson
088.
P 5
v.
Cator, 5 Ve8.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
212
relief
in
Equity.
under
it,
is
The Person
a Trustee;
deriving Title
is,
v
of Equity decreed against the fine
Letters Patent,
if
obtained by Fraud,
may be
Fraudulent Instruments
may be proved
to
be
ment,
deration of a
the
as well as
Deed was
fraudulently
obtained.
Allusion
young Heirs
and Reversioners, and in what manner inadequacy
x
In
of consideration affects Contracts by them
has already been
made
to the case of
what
is
for annulling
i.
e. to
been
1
be performed,
if
see also
v.
Powell,
Ves.
Penne v. Peacock,
lor. 42. it was doubted how far
fraud could aflect so solemn
au act as a Fine ; but in the
In
not a ground
fairly
JSarnsley
289.
to
Wilkinson v.
Brayfield, 2 Vern. 307. Baker
390.
Pritchard, 2 Atk.
v.
;
amount
234
is
it
FRAUD.
parties,
ed:
21.'i
still less,
for rescinding an
Agreement
ally performed.
executed,
i.
actu-
e.
ob-
in
this
Price, independent of
aside a Transaction
."
bargain
and yet
is
such
as
may
be
valid, unless
shocks the
in the Transac-
tion^.
Whenever
adequate
an agreement
to
as
is
satisfy the
conscience of the
so extremely in-
inadequacy,
that
or that species
to oppression, the
An Annuity
Court
cannot, generally
See
Griffith v.
Spratby,
Lowther
v.
Lowther, 13 Ves.
103.
y
a
;
but
Ambl.
Phillip*,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
214
if
aside
'.
What
it
may be
set
was
for one
said,
would be
The doctrine
of the Scotch
its full
what shocks
but where a
it
Sale,
has been
Law as
Men
to facile
extent, in England
but
of another,
practices
extortion,
Court
particular circum-
d
.
A. B. had
will give
said,
'
Title as Heirs,
no Information or Assistance
without doing
so,
you
will take
but
if
elQOO, I will
which was
by subsequent
events,
Bro.
Maskeen
8 Geo.
2.
v.
1733.
Cote, T.
MS,
T.
fair at
very advantageous,
the
a
Thornhill v. Evans, 2 Atk.
330.
e
See Pickett v. Loggan,
14 Ves. 240 and see on this
subject, Ardglasse v.
Muschamp, 1 Vern. 237, 239.
Proof v. Hines, Forrester 111.
:
FKAUD.
215
If,
Man
should contract
would
So,
still
if
Deed be
*.
end
an
''.
and Sales by
gross inadequacy
ground of
would
not,
Marriage Contracts
for
unequal, and
was
give
they
in statu quo,
said in
relief
made by
Batty
and
Lloyd,
Stephens
very
against
Lord
it
unmarry the
or
See
Wicherley,
brought a Bill to be
'
even
against
may be
Wichcrley v.
seems, form
it
in
for
Sales
Settlements, Jointures, or
Provisions, though
Parties, as
Auction
',
1
relief.
Nor does
other
to
a Suit, although
it
di< s
Court
first
Sell
Annuity
is
to
the contract
Visct.
the
Tenant
in considera-
by virtue of
Bateman,
Bro. C. C.
22.
422.
'
35.
White
v.
Damon, 7
Ves.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
216
power,
denied"
reserved
him
to
but
relief
was
In
these cases
all
deration,
open,
it
Contract,
if a
it
is
n
.
settled,
27
it
is
Eliz.
now
c. 4.
actual Fraud,
is,
however
Settlement,
free
from
a subsequent
the same
effect
The
Statute receives
same
is
no more affected
by a
legal Estate
"
hardly
wicfee,
know
an Instance," says
Lord Hard-
m North
Wms.
n
And
."
v.
where a Power
Ansell,
P.
619.
Maskeen
v.
Cote, Trin. T.
Lev. 105.
Otley
v.
Hill
v.
is
executed under
of Exeter,
FRAUD.
217
wards executed
Power
but
after-
is
the
Pur-
if
it
would
previous voluntary
invalidate the
settlement
Man makes
Conveyance of
Land, and the Alienee sells the same for a
valuable consideration, the Land is bound '.
It is observable, that where a voluntary conIf a
veyance
is
a voluntary
no instance, of a
satisfaction being decreed against the maker of
the voluntary Conveyance, or his Estate, unless,
able consideration,
there
is
tel Interest, in
favor of a Child,
by one, not
in-
is
against Purchasers
>',
revocation, for
session
instance
of pos-
.)
power of
retention
ham,
or
(a
Sed. 133.
Williamson
1 Ves. 51(5.
w
Fitzer
13.
v.
v.
Codrington,
Fitzer,
2 Atk.
44.
1
132.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
218
one
If
voluntarily
settles
with a
his Estate,
who
but
if it
it
not fraudulent
is
b
.
back an Annuity
If a Father takes
to the value
of the Estate
considered as tantamount to
it
is
a continuance in
such settlement.
So,
if
Bond
or Mortgage, or
he dies in her
life,
yet that
is
considered as a mere
respect
to
Creditors,
But
if
conveyance
voluntary
debted,
it
would
one indebted at
it
Estate for
is
prevail
ike lime^
to
Wife, and
c
.
makes a mere
considered as
still
voluntarily,
of
part
indebted, conveying
and
his
Man
being always
e
.
If a
'
Lord
2Freern.
c
Banbury's
Case,
8.
Underwood
1 Ves. 280.
v.
Hitbcox,
Marriage, in
e
Lord Townshend v. Wyndbam, 2 Ves. 10, 11; and see
1 Atk. 15. and 94. Taylor v.
Jones,
2 Atk. 600.
FRAUD.
pursuance of a'Bond
B
Marriage
'2l
or other
upon payment of
sum
Agreement before
Money
as a
Por-
Money; or even
upon an Agreement to pay Money, (provided the
Money be afterwards paid ;) this makes the Settton
new
or a
additional
of
tlement
Law and
at
for
some inadequacy
unimportant
is
'.
and the
able effects,
at the time,
not,
fact
even
Creditors,
against
Transaction
nor
is
to
tlement
And
}i
so, will
it
be
invalidate
his
the
Hus-
Wife
m
;
Husband
cluded
in the Settlement,
if
f
Jason v.
286.
Bond
is
Jervis, 1
of
B
Hylton v. Biscoe, 2 Ves.
308.
h
Stileman v.Ashdown,2 Atk.
479. Jones and Marsh, For. 63.
S. C. MS. Wheeler against
Caryl, Ambl. 121
and see
Hilton v. Biscoe, 2 Ves. 308.
Browne v. Jones, 1 Atk.
190. see also ex parte Hall,
;
way
05. S. C. MS.
- Browne v. Jones, 1 Atk.
190.
"
Nairn v. Prowse, 6 Ves.
759. Wheeler against Caryl,
Ambl. 121.
Campion
271.
v.
Cotton, 17 Ves.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
220
Bond
is
or
insol-
to the
make
could
do so
if
it
fraudulent
is
after
Marriage,
such Set-
sufficient ,)
pursuance of
s
to
made
a Settlement be
tlement, unless
in
amount
the amount of
Marriage in Scotland
is
Trader
all his
But
if a
of al000, he might
or
no bounds
for
could
(a
Marriage
articles before
r
,
is
made
1
;
unless
it
be
Mortgage,
in
Settlement w
which case
for to
do
it
would not
that,
it
seems
affect the
the Party
observable, that
if
there be Creditors
ment,
at
Ex
is
and
Beaumont
1 Ves. 27.
v.
Thorpe,
it is
to,)
on that account
all
so settled, be-
subsequent Cre-
8
See Watts v. Thomas, 2 P.
Wins. 304.
l
Kidney v. Coussmaker,
12 Ves. 155. see Middlecombe
v. Marlow, 2 Atk. 520. and
White v. Sansom, 3 Atk. 413.
v
Lush v. Wilkinson, 5 Ves.
387.
w
104.
but
comes
Stephens against
2 Bro. C. C. 30.
Olive,
FRAUD.
221
x
it
what
faking
Bill, in
payment of
By
Conveyances were
were Creditors
ance was made
called, a
own
his
debt.
Common Law,
the
is
ont
in
the
and
fraudulent
avoidable by
at the
Gifts or
Persons
who
making of them
And though a voluntary Deed, a Bond
subsequent
ditors,
stance,
is
to the
void against
Creditors, yet
if
for in-
arrears
and
Deed may be
arrears, the
tors
if a
is
new Bond,
given
for
or
such
'.
the wife, in
Husband, by a
Bill in
Widow,
it
See Taylor
;
and
see
v.
is
make a Settlement
2 Atk.
said of
Lush
384; and
y
Atk. 93.
Wilkinson, 5 Ves.
v.
see
what
will be
good
Jones,
what
sought by the
to a second Marriage,
COO
is
such Settlement
rects a Settlement,
against Creditors
hands,
Trustee's
is
said of
in favour
Ambl.
121.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
22'2
first
be consider-
will not
There are
reciting a parol
riage,
riage, is
Mar-
it
rectly decided.
DuTens
that
it
It
was discussed
Dundas and
in
matter of curiosity,
the plaintiff,
as
there referred to
it
;
if
the
first
was.
case in
Levinz
is
for
ment made
it
Settle-
and therefore
stand upon
after
A
it,
its
Marriage
own
it
footing, as a
mere Settlement
f
.
it,
how much
soever he
may
e
Newstead
Atk. 264.
v.
Searles,
2 Lev. 146.
Randal
v.
Morgan, 12 Ves.
74.
FRAUD.
void only as against Creditors
It is
folly."
223
in
which
it
may
and
be necessary
is
purpose,
To
it
it is
Settlement
it
every other
stands
Nor would
'.
subsequent
'."
According
to Sir
gives a Bond,
Trust
the obtaining
in
would not
set
the obligor,
will not
if
Man
if
it
it,
of
Court of Equity
he be compos mentis
measure the
Court
Understand-
for the
size of People's
Capacity
that
it
14
Lord Hardwieke,
/'
was not
sufficient to
set aside an
to be in fact
with
his eyes
relieve
him,
unless
Party
contracting with
means
made
into
use
Whaley
v.
Boughton
v.
open,
hard
v.
Norton,
Bou^hton,
for
and
Equity will
not
in the
some undue
draw him into such
him,
of to
1 Vcrn. 483.
1 Atk. 625.
if a
very
in it
Price.
Agree-
indiscretion in
a legal
supposing
is
or
Cleveland,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
22-1
in
cipal ingredient
of legal incapacity
mond and
no
Fitzroy,
been given,
if
relief
short
as
which the
Bond
tained the
ginally
stood
Parties
in that case,
while an Infant,
or
ob-
having been
ori-
care of the
to take
hired
who
the Servant
young Lord
Report
pears that
of Griffin
who was
Woodeson,
counsel in the
cause,
deed of a'weak
Deed
he said that,
of
by
ap-
it
Court
that the
Improvidence
so long as
and, indeed,
would not
man, who
in
Osmond and
down
Fitzroy
but
Griffin v. Deveuille,
tioned
to
3 P.
in
Mr.
Wms.
Cox's
130. n.
1.
mennote
I..ALD.
tl.
that there
and accordingly,
in this
fact,
used;'*
was deceived, abused, and circumvented, and he declared the Deed which had
that the Plaintiff
Osmond and
Fitzrorj
Lord South*
Mr. Cox's
it
said,
Mr.
might
be.
Co.v's
from
bea ground
conveyance obtained
and
still it
Vol.
Append,
VOL.
less
than
the
some proof of
fraud,
invalidate a transaction".
Woodeson'a Lect.
p. 18.
I.
much
of
would not
may
Peail.
Ves. Jun.
19.
Le\V,s
\*.
2CG
EQUITY "JURISDICTION*
Underhand agreements
Equity.
in
If a
his
Creditors, and
deed of composition
acted upon as
if
Debtor a
it
would be
such security
as well as in
where
is
Equity
to
obtains from
now
is
known
collateral
rest (if
different p ,)
signed, or
is
considered as bad
It
And
at Laic,
and gives a
Debtor
to
but takes
the Creditors,
the Fraud*.
is
is
in fact deceived
rs
bad, only,
by
it
who
1
.
The
Civil
Law
in favor
of a
Bond
the procuring Of a
Law
at
p
See IJibblfthwaite's case,
mentioned; 13 V'es. 586, 7.
Mawsorj y. Stock, 6 Ves.300.
Child v. Danbridge,
2
Verm 71. Middleton v. I.or<l
Onslow, 1 P. Wins. 7i. 8. Spurret v. Spiller,
1 Atk.
105.
for pro-
Marriage
fur an
v.
AssumpMitchell,
1 Bro. Civil
Law. 79,
*'"
',
Lords': and
WJW
now
it is
relieve against
in t\i& House
of
Bonds given
of a Marriage"; and
tor the
procuring
funded
chirl-:
and
given on
grounds of public convenience, such Bonds do
not admit of confirmation, though, perhaps, (a sort
is
The Court on
these
may
be
occasions docs
Bonds tend
to introduce
sets the
Bond
gredient of public
set such
ligor,
Bonds
sought
Another
v
Cas.
Potter
\N ins.
relief,
sort of
v.
ground
it-
is
that
were not
the Court,
would not
it
Keen
crimirds ; and
or Hall,
70.
6
.
noticed
70. and 302.
Pari.
If
policy,
who is particeps
ligor has
this
a proper
aside.
Such
Marriage ought to
to
and on
improvident Marriages.
3 P.
w
Drury v. Hook, 1 Vein,
Tievilieu,
412. Arundel v.
1 Ch. Ren. 47. Hall v. Porter,
3 lev. 411. sho. P. C. 7o.
(ilanville v.
Penning, 3 Ch;
liep. 18 Toth. 27. Cole and
Gibson, 1 Yes. 507. Smith v.
Eykwell, 8 Atk. 668.
x
Suiirii v. Brumn r 2 Yens.
3 P. Wins. 394.
Shirty v. Martin, men*
tioned in note 1, tu Roberts
and Roberts, 3 P. Wins. 71.
'
S. (\
v and
Law, For. 142.
MS. Debcnhaiu v. Ox, 1
..
Ves.277.
Cole
v.
Gibson, 1
Yes. 500,
Roberts
Wms.
70.
v.
1 Ves. 277.
392.
Q2
Roberts, 3 P.
Debenham
\ es. '277.
v.
Ox,
EQUITY JURISDICTION
2'2S
Man
it is
a contract
Jurisdiction of Equity'
advanced
procure another an
his Interest to
sells
commission
procuring a
for
money was
where
as
the
in
have worn
a livery, he
it
was
Money
"
If,"
paid, and to be
make
no
have no
is
Executors
many
in
respects,
Equity, mere
are, in
and
for
many
but
purposes, third
owners
The
f
.
absolute
Law
at
and
in
Equity, and
is
it is
them
considered necesto
execute their
of the
Assets
d
Money produced by
f
>;
nor
"Whittingham
is it
v.
Morris
v.
Burgoyne,
M'Culloek,
Ambl.
Law,
Du
may
propose to
make
3 Anstr. 900.
e
inquiries, as to the
e See
Humble and Bill,
2 Yern. 440. the doctrine of
which case appears to have
been followed, though the
decree
was
reversed
in
the
220
FRAUD.
But
if
is
a person dealing
is
with an Executor,
must be
a very strong
behalf of Persons
case
beneficially
If,
aware
'',)
some
cases,
interfere
on
under
entitled
one con-
for instance,
nominal price, or
tator's effects at a
is
at a fraudulent
for his
own
behoof, or
Executor k ,
And
it
value
even
in
there has
if
Purchaser,
the
liable
If
set aside
bind a Creditor
is
no other
v.
Monk,
Ves. 131.
it
would
005.
k
As
in Scott v.
Tyler,
Dick. 725.
See M'Leod and Drummond, 17 Ves. 1(37.
m Scott v. Tyler, 2 Dick.
725. Hill and Simpson, 7 Ves.
'
152.
230
TQVITY- JCTUSDICTICN,
bind hitn \
If an Administrator grants a
a;
Person
Hjjsgs
Lease
to-
who
interested,
it
it
seem?,
the disposition
to question
but Creditors,
may
specific
whom
to
fraud
Why
imputable.
is
a Residuary
in
if
or the Person
under.whom he
Court
takes, tlfe
in.
Equity:
as
to
where one
for
Marriage
are reaffects
in
one
ment.
If a
Fortune paid,
received back
or a
Bond
set aside
Skr. diet.
Noel
v.
for that
Robinson,
Vern. 455.
DroUu
v.
Drohan,
1 Ball
TV-arty, 185.
and
|72.
* So*:
\'$
what Lord
M'Leod
a:id
in part
this
which
privately
is
given
a
;
description are
is
r
Andrew against Wrigley,
4 Bro. C. C. 125.
a
Palmer v. Neve, 11 Ves.
107 and see Chesterfield and
;
in
a private Agree-
of Indemnity
Underhand Agreements of
always
is
by
F.ldon* says
Drummond,
FBAUO.
S3|
mur
ways
Agreement
by
any-
was
private Treaty or
Where,
infringed
to
the
Wife's Father
to
So,
afterwards;
Court of Equity
in a
by being assigned
where
gave a Bond to
Marriage,
the
Bond was
and not made
this
;
to Creditors' 1 .
Annum,
JO per
the
private
Bond being
the
Lady,
Bill to
it
was held
if
his
Niece
e
.
a Father takes a
tobem
considered
the nature of a
up f
file
entitled to a
it is
Annum,
per
^100
marriage
to be delivered
Upon
the
same
in Tail, in consi-
Bond by
Remainder-man*..
a
young
c
Lanilee v.IIannam,2 Vera.
499.
1
Turton v, Benson, 1 P.
Wow. 490.
Woman
secretly given to
e
Pitcuirn v. Oybourne,
Ves. 370.
!
2 Yern. 440.
v.
Brett,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
232
a
Man
if
been
on
it
his
was a Fraud on
The
Money,
he giving a Bond to
the Parent,
who was
ig-
norant of the
riage.
of
set aside,
that
sum
opinion of
advance her
for her to
known
in marriage,
which had he
of the
in
would have
therefore in fraud
such a manner
it
or
is
as
among his
h
.
In these cases where part of the marriage Portion is agreed to be returned, there is no Fraud be-
on the Parents
or Friends of one of them, who are deceived by
settling
Lands, equal
Parties, but
to the
set aside'.
Where, however, A.
his Son,
was
ture
per
and
in his settlement
power
terwards,
reserved to the
any Wife
Annum,
whom
Father to join-
marrying a
10
FRAUD.
release
it,
Father
for the
payment of
would not
cellor
being prior
the
to
in time,
In Marriage
this
would be injurious
was
to
first
Bond, because
marriage,
be preferred
much
it
which
k
.
233
of the
at stake, that
Woman not having so great a poras the Man insisted upon, prevailed upon her
marriage
tion
brother to
tion,
the
',
her have
let
^160
to
make up
for the
her por-
repayment of
it.
her Executor
quoery
of the
is
Bond
if
the condition
the
Wo-
man
survived her
ra
difference.
In a Case where a
Widow
on the Marriage of
v.
Roberts, 3 P.
is
said
m See Neville
v.
1 Bro. C. C. 546.
Wilkiuson,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
31
dulent".
Awards,
aside in Equity
made
Wm. 3.
seems
and
this,
to
When
1
.
bind an Infant',)
submission to the
a
may be set
though the Award be
fraudulently obtained,
if
contempt of Court
Arbi-
denial in the
that
is
Answer
sufficiently done, a
will be sufficient';
of the Cause,
enough
this
to
but
upon the
hearing*
should be
strong
if
still,
the Evidence
Award
of the
plea
partiality, or
where
countofa
may
be set
his
mis-
x\c-
Ship without
was
in, it
was held
to be a Fraud,
Lord Lonsdale v.
465,499.
1
Vern. 157. Harris v.
Mitchell, 2 Vern. 485. Burton
v. Knight, 2 Vern. 514. Tittenson v. Peat, 3 Atk. 529.
q
Hampshire
2 Atk. 155.
s
*
Littledale,
v.
Young,
Lingoodv.Croucher,2Atk.
TRAVD.
23. J
was ordered
the Costs v
to
be delivered
both
Law
at
received on
and
Equity, and
in
Policy
the
directed
Premium
the
to
Life,
Costs,
go
in
part
of Costs
unmarried,
may
perty in any
whom
A Woman, while
manner she
pleases
and a Husband
or any inquiry
concern-
impeach a conveyance,
same
So,
to be fraudulent".
if
Feme
band's power
but
if
Feme
does
secretly,
on the
Term
for years in
if
Woman
De
Costa
v.
Scandret,
P.
Wins. 170.
Whittingham
v.
See Bowes
v.
But
"
for herself,
though,
Trust
Thorn-
S. C. Prec.
Strathmore,
the
privity of the
G.
!345.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
235
intended Husband,
fraud
it
will be considered
as a
in
unimpeachable
And where
Widow
made a
HusIssue by her
b
but a power
be valid
first
the remainder
of a
Term
be void
settled
c
.
Bonds, to be paid
such a
Man
d
;
if
Widow,
or being a
if
she should
proceed from
free
choice,
any
compulsion.
If a verdict has been obtained
by Fraud, a Court
f
.
Law be
obtained against
Judgment at
conscience, a Court of Equity will decree the
So,
if
1
Cotton v. King, 2 P. Wms.
360. Poulson v. Wellington,
Edmonds
17.
b
Cotton v. King, 3 P. Wms.
357,674. Hunt v. Matthews,
1 Vera. 408.
c
Blithe' s
Case,
2 Freem.
91 ,2.
d
Key
v.
Bradshaw, 2 Vern.
102.
c
Baker
v.
White, 2 Vern.
215.
f
Batemanv. Willoe,
and Lefr. p. 205.
1 Sch.
rp.AUD.
237
may
be set aside
*,
Bill in
It
is
obtained by Fraud,
An
Order
in
obtained by Fraud
So,
if
will
01
.
The Purchase
by a
and without
and
competition,
contrived
at an under-value,
is
proved, a
ment of
b
.
proved, had
which
Court of Chan-
Sheldon v.
Fort<
Aland, 3 P. Wins, 111.
Ambl.229.
'
lb.
ra
Barnsley
and
Powell,
Ves. 290.
Hall,
b
321,
12 Ves. 321.
White
v.
Hall,
12 Ves.
EQUITY JURISDICTION".
23S
decree
So
Dower
if
who
is
yet
his
drunk,
is for
drunkenness
extenuate
his
it is
great offence
in
does not
itself,
touching his
And
Man
that concerns
him e /*
is
when
him,
and that
it
life,
in
those circumstances,
unless
the
or contrivance of
was taken
and therefore
some
unfair advantage
him,
Barnsley
v.
Powell,
Ves.
287.
d
Hoby
218.
Sneyd
S.
v.
v.
Hoby,
Vern.
4 Co. 125.
'Johnson v. Medlicott, 3. P.
Wins. p. 130. n. a. and see
Cook v. Clayworth,18Ves. 12,
1-IMUD.
a
reasonable, and
:ve
been taken,
complaining of
239
when he executed
it
was drunk
it
K
.
Decisions, by such
Lawyers, are
Law
as
successive
ma) not be
satisfactory.
for
to
them
It
aside,
it
absolute.
but a lesser deg-ce of drunkenness, which only darkens reason, has not the effect of annulling a contract
for
'.
it
Thedistinctionthustaken,seems reasonable;
never can be said that a Person
lias
absolute/;/
that freedom of
to a deliberate
At Law
time deposed.
will a
Court of Equity be
frailty
seems
with a Man,
who
of deliberation
to
is
and
evidence
that he
It
in
sign the
drunk
did not
for a
it
made him
that they
is
less
indulgent to
be a Fraud to make
so
And
human
contract
so drunk as to be incapable
if so.
contracts of such
the
Equity.
may
easily be
imagined.
Ifcincccius k
Krsk. Lust.
*Cok
t.
v.
all
Selw. Abridgment,
447.
MS.
49.3,
Stockier,
'
p.
agree
1.
Ch.
1.
9.
1. art. 4.
equity Jurisdiction.
240
of Equity,
drunkenness
yet as
is
own
procuring,
lessen his
itself,
punishment
and
but
it
the time
it is
ever, Equity, as
it
especially if it
drunk
How-
his goods, or
sively
"Although
of his
it is
that
he
is
is
so eXces_
for
it
can by no
it
itself.
Devisee, therefore,
bound
is
to
answer
the
Law
Mortmain
p.
to take
of defeating an
out a commission
Execution'
for the
or after a
by way of mortgage
r
.
purpose
Judgment
all
Even
the
after
King
192.
v.
Marissal, 3 Atk.
frRAUD.
211
may
assign
a Legacy*
3
.
sell to
Money
Interest
So,
really raised,
this being a
of lending
Sum
at
an
extraordinary
of
rate
the
at
to
Money
a profit on the
terest
lent,
beyond
legal
In-
who
endeavour
Interest,
to find
and
to
have made
beyond which
general rule
their
it
it
and
down any
should be found out: they, therefore, always determine upon the particular circumstances of each
case
may be
Bill
filed
least
oppressive bar-
been given*.
to have a
Bond
delivered
fedgell v.
367.
;
v.
1 Bro.
aud
l.\
Browne
VOL.
1-
U!.
v.
Odea,
Sch.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
242
repaid
Interest
It
might be different
legal
if
the Securities
lost at
Gaming and
Money
In the Case of
paid, the Court,
the Plaintiff in
it
to prevent
mentioned
*300
as
in
the Seal
interfered
a year to
Borough, and
relief,
after his
Son
his
qualify
to sit
for
it
him
qualification to enable
to sit in Parlia-
it
was
If the
before he
Bill
had carried
So
13
.
if
Father, a Citizen,
makes a
so
swear he
as to
is
not worth
Sum
the
of ,1.5,000,
Sheriff, the
Child
Bosanquetand Dashwood,
For. 37. S. C:
x
lb. 41.
MS.
y lb.
2
Anon. MSS.
Ambl.
265,6.'
b
against
Blagrave,
against
Blagrave,
Birch
Ambl. 266.
c
Birch
Ambl. 265, 6.
d
See Bridgman
2 Ves. 627,
v.
Green,
FRAUD.
213
it.
though good
So,
if
A. but
f
.
in case
Term
of Years,
is
There
is
a very strong
a void
is
5
authority.
It has
be
an additional
liable to
in
fact
Act
passed, the
it,
being-
House of Commons'
The
House of Commons, might ap-
pear from a vote of that House, but not the intention of the Legislature.
It is
now
usual to
degree
retrospective,
nature,
which
if
avoid evasions
to
in
some
of this
it'.
'
Young
v.
Peachy, 2 Atk.
Carte
v.
on
his
Da ugh-
S. C. Auibl. 32.
h
and
Vicars
Attorney
General, 6 Bio. C. ft 491/
Toinl. Edition.
R 2
'
lb. note
by Editor.
EQUITY JURISDlCriO>.
214
tcr's
death a
at his
and
full
and afterwards
Funds
Covenants of
this nature,
are
this
life,
by no means cen-
But he
limited expence.
more
tain
is
partial inclinations
and dispositions
one Child
lity to
If his partia-
is
and by an unqualified
Right and
He must not
surrendering
exercise his
is
but only
cease
If
at a
time
all
his
own
lie
Interest,
favor of
in
directly, absolutely,
it
gift,
and
when
his
own
own
Interest,
Interest
will
k
.
undue
influence
Court of Equity
will set
it
aside
as if a Parent
from
it
Conveyance.
An Act
done out of a
fear
of displeasing a
FUAUD.
Father or Mother,
is
Contract; hut
vitiates a
Q45
if
employs
treatment,
ill
seems, be
it
Son Tenant
if a
in
on something
Life, a^ree
younger Children,
for
of the
the benefit
there
Agreement be
if
the
aside
it
yet
sort,
at
of his Authority
always be made
but
*;
in tune,
which
Marriage, under
moment
it is
mainder,
Tenant
for Life
Age
of
in a
Cory
v.
chant, I
on
Tom.
Tory, 1 Ves,
JO
1.
C. C. 300. see
subject, Pothier,
17.
Vol. 243.
ter, 5 Ves, 570,
L.
his
Father
for the
purpose
to his first
15ro.
tliis
the
is
in Tail in re-
joined
Recovery,
with remainder
was
immediately,
Tenant
a Son,
Father
As where
when just
a right".
&c.
after the
dead,
his
not
must
complaint
the
Brown
v.
Car-
Equity he might
m Young
v.
Peachy, 2 Atk.
254.
'
Bower
877;
and
Cocking
v.
see
Carter,
1
v. Pratt.
Ves.
5 Ves.
401;
EQUITY JURISDICTION".
24(3
lost
his
death of
after the
till
by
and
it is
good
done
but
if
freely
Son who
a Conveyance which
draws
who
a Father
in a
is
Tenant
is
Tenant
is
in Tail to join in
Remainder,
the Court
it
for Life
will relieve
Son\
the
If a
ment
Man
r
,
in
will not,
it
seems, be good,
it
5
;
as if
a Counsel be present*.
Frauds on Powers
in Equity.
A Party,
Some
execute a Power
for his
own
not be allowed to
benefit
as
where
with a
But
Money
as administrator of the
Child
Browne
v.
Carter,
5 Ves.
Blackborn
Wms.
q
v.
Edgley, 1 P.
607.
Heron
v.
Heron,
2 Atk.
161.
Roy v. Duke
2 Atk, 193,
1
'
Hinton
v.
Power
Hinton, 2 Ves,
Sen. 635.
SG2.
p
of Beaufort,
Roy
v.
Duke
of Beaufort,
2 Atk. 193.
v
See what is said in Mac
Queen v. Furquhar, 11 Ves,
479.
*RAUD.
247
not bound
to see to
the
transaction appearing
fair
abstract,
it
and the
application,
was held
Though
there be a
Power
in
Settlement to
younger Child,
at such time as
cannot direct
be raised
to
it
at fourteen
Such
be necessary
It
for this
it
against the
own
in his
is
Life, if
would be proper so
to
it
should
do upon
poses
much difficulty
mindsof
in the
some
pointment
is
effectual"; but in
ment,
is
that, if a
it is
there held
lb.
y Lord Iliiiehinbrokeiigiiinst
Seymour, lBro.C.C. 3D5.
Vanderzee
v.
Aclom,
Ves. 785.
a
Boyle
borough,
v.
1
Bishop of PeterVes.Jun.310.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
48
must make
at
fair,
an illusory appointment
will,
he
fit,
and of
the Court
this^
Judg-
its
ment*.
ed the Principle
laid
down
is
all
determining what
said, in
as far as
case, is not
any
Sum
whole
is
illusory, that
it
it is
to
Sum
where the
difficulty of determining
what
will
farther
appointed
be appointed, as
in
former cases
appointment
appoint
to
Power
is
allotted to
"
words,
is
wherever a Power
is
given,
to
d
;
but
to be disposed
if
Power be
the
is
these
in
may
give
it
to
one
c
.
383,
be
to
valid.
Child
go
JHoccata
v.
Lousada4
v.
Syl-
vester,ib. 126.
d
For. ?2.
4 Ves. 784.
e
85G.
Kemp
v.
Kemp, 5
Ves.
IIMUD.
If an
119
appointment be determined
be illusory,
to
to be rectified,
the Court,
it
has been
decreeing
an ajual distribution f
property as
reason
sufficient
Sum
is
given,
it
of the Appointment, a
face
why
has appeared,
has been
nominal
held to be effective
as
such a
Power 5
of execution of the
in default
11
between
tor
giving
'.
If a
part defec-
in
will not
much
but so
will stand,
is
well appointed
appointment
fault of
It
Fund which
of the
that
an appointment
if
it
de-
And
as in
may be by
it
times
in
.
different
power,
v.
to each Child,
Instruments, at different
Vein.
cer
given
is
'
Mad
lison
v.
"See Wilson
2 Ves. 354.
Andrew.
v.
v.
Butcher,
Pig
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
250
several times
at
at
one
'for Life,
at
another".
where there
that
Daughters
think
very
must be equally
but that
now
to divide
is
not
Sum
allowed
But
Rule of the
the
small
among
good reason
unless a
But,
Court.
power
in
fit, it
appeared
is
it
if
some
for giving a
very
sort,
to one,
p.
if
is
for the
sufficient,
U the words
iC
then to be dis-
ham
to
amount
clusion of one
is
arc,
v.
Smith, 1 Vern.
85.
*
Astry
v.
Astry, Prec.
Ch.
256.
Kemp
v.
and
see
Kemp, 5 Ves.
Gibson v. Kinven, 1 Vein. 67. and Maddip
859
8
.
If the
an undue execution
Lord Notting-
that
would give
' Kemp
v. Kemp,
5 Ves.
861. Bristow v. Warde, 2 Ves.
Jun. 336.
'
See Gibson v. Kinven, 1
Vern. 66. Menzey v. Walker,
For. 72. Maddison v. Andrew,
1 Ves. 57. Alexander v. Alexander, 2 Ves. 640.
s
Kemp
656,7.
v.
Kemp, 5
Ves.
FRAUD.
51
amongst
all
" amongst
all or
such of
shew
my
Children
,"
or,
" to and
Child or Children""
such
or,
or,
to
Power
anyone
point to
to ap-
description
or,
Power
among
of appointing
Children, will
Power
to
make a
Jointure,
fraudulently
if
As where
Jointure
to be
is
made,
in
fair,
is
not do.
often happens a
It
Man
Money
and take
it
to
make up
is
is
v.
Thomas, 2
Vern. 513.
v
Tomlinson
Wms.
1 P.
v.
Dighton,
149.
Wollen
v.
Tanner, 5 Ves.
218.
x
Macey
389,
it is
;
Shurmer,
Atk,
the Wife
settled to her
but wherever
in
the
usual
y Leife
v. Saltingstone, in
C. P. 1 Mod. 189, 2 Lev. 104,
Carter 232.
Kemp v. Kemp, 5 Ves.
857.
Butcher
y,
if
stipulated to be applied
in a proper
Thomas
is
Friends ad-
So
a fraud.
not allowable
his
Lady
marries a
Ves. 91.
v.
Butcher,
IS
EQUITY JURISDICTION,
lb*
way
*.
to be so during its
continuance
The
term,
clear, is
and
all
usage of the
Country,
in
Land-Tax and
all
Country ought
a variety
be
to
c. 18. s. 17.
Custom of London
lie,
as a
of Cases,
fraud on the
11
Geo.
I.
" to give, devise, will and dispose" of their Personal Estates, " as they shall think
now
fit,"
most of
of no importance.
the execution
As
where
of
Person,
whom
Thurlow considered
it
he was
See
benefit,
Earl of Tyrconel v.
of Ancaster, 2 Ves.
501, 2,
c
lb. 502.
lb. 504, 5.
Lord
Duke
connected,
which he derived
Q
.
e
Huguenin v. Baseley, 14
Ves. 290. see also 289 and
see Mestaer v. Gillespie, 11
Yes. 6-38. Prec. Ch. 393.
;
FRAU0.
253
It
cate,
in
Where an Heir
a Testator
him
it
trouble,
Equity
.
was unnecessary
and that
to
enforced in
himself that
give
should be paid
it
telling
such under-
Equity
';
but
if
the
promise had been made, by a person not interested, or not solely interested,
ent
it
would be
differ-
'.
With
able,
it is
W. and M.
observc.
14.
Debtor devising
Lands, or by the
his
all
Ves. 0-21. 8. C.
c.
v.
GO.
and appointments of
and
Gillespie,
MS. and
dispositions,
f
20 Geo. 3.
34 Geo. 3. c. 08.
e See
Mestaer
1 1
alie-
see
v.
real
tit.
Contract
Atk, 449.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
254
Estates,
power
by Tenants
to dispose
as against Creditors
and
that
by bond or other
that
if
shall
simple, or having
fee
in
specialties
and
By
descended.
tor
in
is
if
Bond
Credi-
Portions in pursuance
demands do
still liable
Debtor
in their
to
made
before Mar-
whose
specialty Creditors,
payment of
for if
he de-
And
by
bond
m
the Statute of Limitations, have been let in .
by Descent,
who
Woolston
croft v. Long, 1 Ch. Cas. 32. 3
Ch. Rep. 7. Hixom v. Witham,
1 Ch. Ca. 248. Anon. 2 Ch.
3. in note,
cites
or the Devisee
763.
m See Fonbl. Eq. 1 Vol. 283.
in note,
who
cites
Gofton
2 Vern. 141.
lb. note by Editor.
Mill,
v.
FRAUD.
alienate the Estate to a bonajiih Purchaser, they
the Statute,
if
whether
the
payment of
by
specialty
";
Testator
had de-
his debts,
or simple
for as the
Money
in those
no Action
tied
down
to
the
all
his
Creditors
11
Fraudulent Devises was supposed to be an approbation of Equitable assets, and after that Statute,
when
a devise was
made
for
payment of debts,
all
As we shall have
n
Matthews v. Jones,
2
Anstr. 506.
Vid. Woolston croft
v.
I.onr,Ch. Ca. 32. Anon. 2Ch,
Ca.54.
somewhat
at length.
1 Bro. C. C. 139. in n.
See the able judgment in
Silk and Prime, 1 Bro. C. C.
139. in note; S. C. 1 Dick.
384.
q
Equity jurisdiction.
jtf
Work,
Subject will
this
down as a maxim,
As
Party enabling
that, a
is
it
Mortgagee,
who
that a second
if
b
j
this position
has in more
that the
now
is
Fraud, Conceal-
in
amounts
to evidence of a
fraudulent intention*
is
first
Mortgagee
So,
if
d
.
Deeds
to
go out
may be
r
.
Wms. 281.
Vid. what J.Burnett soys
Ryall v. Rowles, 1 Ves. Sen.
300. 1 Atk. 168 ; and see what
Justice Buller says in Goodtitle v. Morgan, 1 T. R. 702.
See Peter V. Russell,
ton, 3 P.
c
132.
Brooke, 13
Vefi.
FRAUD.
and
fraudulently
2j7
concealed
his
Mortgage,
Land
to hold the
Heirs
the Issue
'.
and
yell
Christie
employs
seems now
it
that if on
settled,
price,
the
him up
with
price, this
is
view
to
Bex-
pretty
well
Auction, a Vendor
Sale by
in
to
certain
person
is
Purchase
prevent a Sale
at.
But
'.
undervalue, but
an
if
view
to
take
to
Where
all
any
is
fraudu-
real bidders
who
14
destroyed
or
concealed by
v.
Berrisford
Mil ward,
2 Atk. 41). S. C. Barn. 49.
uu. 39S.
<
nnimli-y v. Alt,
Ves.
.'J
620.Conollyv. Parson8,3VeB.
025 and Bee what is ^ai<l in
'JVining end Morrice, 2 Pro.
C. C. 331. Smith v. Clark-,
}2 Ves. 447.
;
VOL.
I.
where
Deed
the Defendant,
'
Smith
v.
is
the
Clarke, 12 Ves.
4$3.
k
Pro. P. C. 520.
last
edit.
equity jurisdiction;
258
the reason in
and a Party
Jurisdiction,
may
obtain a Decree
upon the head of Spoliation and Suppression, without being put to the difficulty of going to the
Ecclesiastical
Where
Court
Deed
n
.
or Will
is
Will, will
Deed
suppressed by the
convey
to
p.
Deed
had burnt
who
confessed he
it,
T
.
In another case,
where a
adduced
as
to
v.
S. C. 1 Dick. 4.
m Whitfield
1 Ves.
n
Faussett,
v.
387.
3ti0.
Saltern against
Melhuish,
J P.
Dalston
Burton,
v.
Coatsworth,
see
King
noticed
in
the
first
mentioned Case.
" See 1 P. Wms, 732.
r
Sanson v. RumSey , 2 Vern.
561.
s
Ambl. 249.
p
Hampden
mentioned
1 P.
v.
Hampden,
Wms.
C. 1 Bro. P. C, 250.
733. S<
FRAUD.
259
1
,
Deed appears
and
to
be
usually men-
is
Where
a Devisee obtained a
Decree
to hold
and
was supposed,
it
made by
then
purchased the
by the Testator
v
.
The suppression
a strong ground
of
Deeds
will, it
seems, afford
for
legal Estate,
the
Remainder-man
Remainder
is
of
it,
the
gets the
Deed by which
Power, and
Tenant
Tenant
for
for Life to
Life, in
such case,
have a sight
he
may
does not
s9
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
260
If a
Cestui
the destruction
if
will-
is
admitted, that
name
action in the
till
veyance
an
him
a fraud in
ance
a
,
and
in
is
Principal
Deed
Gilbert's
Lex
Praetoria,
Seagrave
v.
Seagrave,
13 Ves. 43Q.
* Atkins v. Fair, 1 Atk. 287.
S. C. more full 2 Eq. Abr. 247.
8
and
Do
7 Anne,
Forbes
20.
Deniston, 2 Bro.
P. C. 425. This is the leading
ca?e on the subject, and appears
to have been extremely well
considered. See 1 Sch. and
C.
v.
Lefr. 99,100.
Le Neve
v.
Le
Con-
in
Conveysuch case
as
notice to the
Appointment of Lands?
of
MS.
cases considered
If a
considered as
Middlesex be made
in
it is
will relieve
these
Money
to obtain a registered
insist
the Court
unregistered
a Register County,
in
it,
after-
Bond, and
in
pursuance of a power
&
Lc Neve
supra,
y.
Le Neve, ut
261
will
be postponed to a
Deed,
a former
in
FRAUD.
it
Mortgage, subsequent
The
notice
to,
it*.
v.
With
Dodd
s
to
find
in
which Relief
is
Deed
is
it
in
several
to have been
Lord
."
given, in cases of
it
upon
'.
If the
would
set
aside,
upon paying
and
so
so, if the
much Money,
Deed
there,
Ut supra.
Jollaud v. Stainbridge,
Ves. 480.
"See Barnesley v. Powell,
I Ves. 2S4.
[See Bates v. Grave*, 2 Vea.
is
jun. 294
till
payment,
k
.
rQUiiY jrnxsoxcxxoN.
264
7F. Infants.
His Majesty
care of Infants
the
King
Patria:,
as Pater
to his
% and
care
this
entitled to the
is
delegated by
is
Court of Chancery
and as
it
neither,
that
seems, has
it
learned Writer,"
it
may
before
also,
it,
provide for
security
its
but whether
it
is
appointed
for general
or whether
it
Court of Chancery,
is
Interest of Infants
a point
which
The Court
of Chancery, therefore,
do
d ."
it
seems,
Bract. Lib.
3.
c. 9. Fleta,
Law
as to Infants con-
Ambl.301. De Mannevilleand
De
c
Bfanneville,
10 Ves. 59.
2 P. Wins. 118.
Treatise
Fonbl. 2
vol.
of Equity, by
229. in note.
INFANTS.
the power
24.
resulted back
tent
the Court of
of
them
to
2.
Infants,
original ex-
its
The
instance, perhaps, in
strongest
Infants,
is
where
lias
Wards
and Liveries
c.
when
2G3
many
such Custody
Child
instances
Jurisdiction
its
has taken
it
its
which the
away
but this
for though, in
and
legal right to
f
,
ill
treatment*,
had become
And
so in a case of
insolvent'.
(a
strong case)
was
case,
abroad
k
;
with him,
Child abroad
and even
if
it
to
51 G
Hill
;
v.
Turner,
Atk.
educate him
in
'
Wilcox
v.
to-
Drake, 2 Dick.
GUI.
k
492.
bury,'
2 P. Wms. 102.
r.QL'lTV JURISDICTION".
261
Ward
make an
Jurisdiction
As
it is
the Chancellor
dian,
it,
it
even to go to
at the instance
of a Guar-
its
Common Law
into the
ot
"'.
the Jurisdiction
If a Child, a
out
it
which there
is
Common Law
Work,
to enter
what
is
here said,
will
as
allowed
in
Guardianship;
the Maintenance;
2.
and
1.
3.
the
the
the
Marriages, of Infants.
By
1.
the
Land
not by
nor
till
Lord Ch.
J.
the Mother
De
h.
",)
a Statute
drawn by
De Man-
50.
Mouns^uart v. Mounstuait,
G Vc. 303.
Manneville v.
ntville, 10 Ves. 52.
Ex
it
Ex
5 ID.
INFANTS.
Child
twenty-one, but
until
period
not
beyond
that;
and
till
twenty-one
It
that a Father
may by
dian
determined
is
born, including
to be
It
Testamentary appointment of
Guar-
is
tute,
x
;
if
dies,
vives
Strictly
speaking,
cannot appoint
Father
but
to a natural child;
Testamentary Guardians
in
his Will
as
Guar-
Master
And where
1
.
a married
Money
Woman was
'
parte
638.
Ludlow, 2 P.
Ex
v.
Eyre
v.
bury, 2 P.
'
Ware)
Countess of Shafts-
Wms.
ag&b
103.
t
St.
Paul,
2Bro. C. C. 563.
lb.
*7Ves.
7 Ves, 348.
re.
Px
Wms.
ap-
p.
34S.
Wallis
Ves. 517.
v.
Campbell,
13
EQUITY JURISDICTION-.
236
Law which
the remedies at
a Father has
than
b
;
all
but
Guardians in
Socage, and are but Trustees, on whose misbehaviour, or giving occasion of suspicion, the Court
And
r
.
has been
it
and that
Administrators
A Guardian
ger,
"
It
it
go to Executors or
will
cannot be conceived/'
am by
that
means
to
5 ;''
case, that a
So, a
says
to
fit
my
ineffectual
is
Lord
give a
is
f
.
King,
Legacy,
daughters, there-
be deprived of a
right,
me, of being
their
to
Child
expectations
not
fore I
is
in
such
h
.
it
being a right
and there
Arnbl.302.
c
Duke of Beaufoit
v.
Berty,
Wms
702.
d Mellish and
Da
2 Atk. 14.
e
2 P. Wms. 121.
1 P.
Costa,
Wms.
b
101.
154.
iwrA>TF.
work
Father's opposition
If there
Estate.
the
Will,
to the
submit
567
any Gift
is
it,
Father in the
Guardian refuses
be presented
but
it
act,
unnecessary,)
may
another Guardian
appoint
to
is
to
'.
w
;
if
in their stead,
'.
Where
there
is
is living, if
Maintenance
also
he be an im-
obtain
a reference
it
has in some
instances
or
a discretionary power
1
Blake
v.
is
Leigh,
Arnbl.
Casey,
300,7.
k
and
O'Keefe
v.
Lefr. 100.
Ex
Sch.
parte Salter,
Bro. C. C. 500.
Spencer against Earl of
Chesterfield, Ambl. 140.
m Ex parte Birchill, 3 Atk.
813. Ex parte Salter, 3 Bro.
C. C. 500. S. C. 2 Dick. 700.
where subject much di?cusicd
1
when Trustees
in
whom
equity Jurisdiction,,
265
allow a Maintenance
The Costs
of the
Guardian
Petfc
in his c-
co tints q .
In some cases a Receiver has also been appointed on Petition but Lord Hardwickc thought that
1
-,
was going
far
too
The
s
.
right to Guardianship
a Bill \
Where
Court,
the
on
Petition,
is excessively
small,
appoints a Guardian,
v
.
upon them
appoint Guardians,
ex
without
officio,
a Suit
If
the Court, as
it is
Petition only
y
,
it*;
is
v.
Tottenham,
and Beatty, Irish Rep.
p. CO.
"Ex
parte Salter,
Bro.
C. C. 500.
r
Ex parte Odell, mentioned
2 Alk. 315. Ex parte Peploe,
Kx
315.
and
will
by Petition
Corbet
1 Ball
parte Whitfield,
Guardian,
in a
change a Guardian,
in
over
perintendency
it
breaking
it is
in
to
Atk.
'
Ex
interfere
on
application to
z
;
parte
Wins. 152.
* Wheeler,
but
it is
said,
Hopkins, 3 P.
Ex
parte, 16 Ves.
2CC.
w
Buck
v.
Draper,
3 Atk:
031.
x
Evrev. Countess of Shaft sbury, "2 P. Wms. 100.
lb. 1 17.
Vid. Earl of
7Ves. 348.
Ilchester
INFANTS.
that
if
the Trust
it is
*iG<>
must be
filed
as Guardian,
misconduct, a
for
it
it'
Bill
a
.
t.ikou
Master
Bank-
approve
to
no objection
a Dissenter
to a
Guardian, that he
is
But
it is
.
unless by
They cannot do
vantage.
it
wantonly
f
.
Lands
purchased by the Guardian with the Infant's personal Estate, or the Rents and Profits of his Real
Estate, will, in case of his death during his
Mi-
nority, be considered
and
personalt
as
still
Trustees could
turn
e:
for if an Infant's
and convert
his personal
of
might
their pleasure
at
O'Keefe
and
6
T.efr.
Smith
v.
Casey, 1 Sch.
See
Warth,
106.
v.
Bate, 2
Dick.
631.
Diet,
I
in
Rook
and
Ves.46f.
Inwood
v.
Twyne, Ambl.
410, 420.
Corbet
1 Ball
Tottenham,
v.
and Beatty, Irish Rep.
P- 61.
* Terry
273,
v.
h'
Gibson and
Scudamore,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
^70
Where
Tail, cuts
Tenant in
down Timber,
the
Money
produces
it
Money
be so
laid
the
'Fee,
will be
it
'.
out
if
the Infant
was
of age to elect
by the Court
to be laid
out
the Property
but
at the
same
time,
it
has been
ordered that the Estate purchased should be conin Trust, for the Infant
veyed
his Executors
twenty-one,
Heirs
and
afterwards, for
and
age of
him and
his
If a feme purchases a
for three
Church Lease
to
her
leaving
,l
son
i
Vem. 437
v.
870. Mason
tioned Axnbh
v.
Mason, men-
37K
See diet, in
is
Rook and
Ashburton v. Ashbnrton,
C Ves. 6 and see Sergeson v*
Sealey, 2 Atk. 413.
'
INFANTS.
anew
271
part of the
Father
The Guardian
Ward and
;
in
and
if
he should
compel him".
the case of a
what
at
Tutor, or
proper Judge
the
is
In
age of
as to
with
laid
whom
management of
Guardians, as
to
parole Evidence
was held
it
to
2.
The
to be admissible
Ward,
has
been
all
in its direction
Court
doctrine of the
the
q.
relative to the
first
who
ordered a
no Bill was
has since been
that
purpose
frequently practised
1
;
and
this
of the Court seems to be, not to grant a Maintenance, upon Petition only, except in very special
m Mason v. Day,
Prec. Ch.
and see Pierson v. Shore,
3H>
Atk. 4S0.
n
Hall v. Hall, 3 Atk. 721
and see Anon. 2 Ves. 374.
Wms.
52.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
27cases
as
tenanee
where there
general Rule,
Maintenance
be ordered
Maintenance
,but
fund
very small
for Main-*
;
hut, as
a,
^HCOper Annum,
s
.
is
Costs
may
*.
also
is
if
time past
a specific
is
or the property
be allowed for
it
is
Where
there
Where
a specific
is
for
y.
Fund
is
Child
7
,
lation, a
Father
is
are given
Ex
given
parte
parte
to.
a Child by a Re-*
Mountfort, 15
Ves.p. 448.
1
is
Ex
it
Father \
Where Legacies
must main-
Thomas,
AmbL
140.
v
Hughes v. Hughes, 1 Bro.
C. C. 380. Hill and Chapman,
2 Bro. C. C. 231.
w Maberly and Turton, 14
Ves. 499. overruling Andrews
and Partington, 3 Bro. 00. but
see the remark on that rase
bytheSolicjtorGeneral in Hoste
v. Pratt, 3 Ves. 733 see also
Sisson v, Shaw, 9 Ves. 288.
Reeves v. Brymer, 6 Ves, 425,
.
x
Mellish and Mellish, 14
Ves. 510, 517.
y
Barrington v. Tristham,
Ves. 349.
z
Hughes against Hughes,
1 Bro. C.
C. 380. Munday
against Earl How, 4 Bro. C. C.
Bro. C, C. 388.
INFANTS.
273
the
b
.
have an allowance
shall
of Maintenance during
of the Father,
life
The question
of ability
is
generally
numerous family
whe-
is,
having a
he borders upon
of children,
of a contingent Legacy to
of his Parent, he
want
is
is
in
the
Poverty
allowed,
is
it
Estate
and there
is
no instance of
by
left
being de-
its
a Father
to the
Mother, married to
f
.
second Husband,
by the
but
is
entitled to an allowance
Where
Man
had children
by
not
first s ;
Maintenance,
for
is
h
.
his
first
Wife,
a Maintenance,
b
Darley v. Darley, 3 Atk.
399.
r
Jackson v.Jackson, 1 Atk.
515.
d
Butler v. Buller, 3 Atk.
VOL.
I.
v.
it
was held
Jeffreys v. Jeffreys, 3
Atk.
123.
lb.
'
Bank of England
v.
Jeffreys,
''
1 Bro. C. C. 2b8.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
274
after the
not bound
to
Wife.
Maintenance
necessary, be allowed to
i[
Infants,
among
will,
all,
and no other
be defeated
1
";
and
',
this,
Will,
in the
upon any
interest that
effect, will
though there be
equal
is
But where,
Event of the
under twenty-one,
Infant's death
in the
to
is
go
In
such Issue, Maintenance is not allowed
Infant
has
not
the
the
absolute
those cases where
1
to
Maintenance
Interest,
on a Bill
only, but
purpose"
is
filed
1
.
Where, from proceedings on a Bill for an Account, the Court is satisfied that the Fund is
clear, a
Residuary Legatee
in
on taking of the
cessary delay
have an allowance
for
accounts,
maintenance,
in the
may
mean
time".
When
much
so
'
See Greenwell
v.
may
Greemvtll,
Ves. 004.
Lomax
v.
parte Kebble,
48.
petition.
1)2.
Ex
Warter
v.
13 Ves-
INFANTS.
taining,
270
will, if
the Infants
have
is
The strongest
case, perhaps,
where maintenance
maintenance
for
Daughter
his
for his
till
twenty-one or
in case she
Marriag
should attain
allowed maintenance
ty-one
The
was
twen-
ordered to
Mother
be paid to the
for
mainte-
The Court,
it
it
generally
special
destitute, a
v.
him
y.
Goldwin,
Burnett
Ex
to tin
v
.
Roach
v.
Garvan,
Ves.
160.
15 Ves.
v.
Shore,
v.
Burnett,
122.
r
'
left
403.
1.
Walker
made
maintain them
to
GoldiVap, 5 VeSi
Chambers
where
distressed circum-
11 Ves.
in
as
stances':
Rawlins
440. ^
and
reference';
Bro.
C. C, ITU.
T 2
'Harvey v. Harvey, 2 !\
Wins. 24.Lanoy v. Ouke arid
Duchess of Aihol, 2 Ait. 417.
Petre v. Petre.. 3 Atk. 511.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
276*
Trustee cannot,
for
as
not to leave a comfortable maintenance and eduvery rarely, that the Court
cation;
and
self has
it is
purpose of maintenance
3.
may next be
the mere
for
of Chancery
applied
generally
to, it
Court
be obtained.
to
the
considered.
a Treaty of Marriage,
Court ought
it-
makes
When the
Court
is
a referrence to the
is
if it is
marry
x
.
The Hus-
band
is
it
to the
The Marriage
is
y.
he
is
474.
x
still
z
of the Guardian,
305.
his
CommoR
Smith, 3 Atk.
INFANTS.
by the
severely punishable
Nor
'2.0.35.".
more resentment
riage of Infants
No act
of Westminster,
Stat,
anything a Court of
greater jealousy of, nor shews
there
is
Equity entertains
277
Mar-
''.
in Life is
much depends.
Ward of the Court, (filing a
Ward of Court',) be suspected
make an improper Marriage,
Infant, a
makes him
of being about
to
affidavit of
generally to restrain
all
11
occasions 6 .
Where an
Infant
Ward
of the Court
is
sus-
Guardian
in
it,
the Court
""the
' 2
Inst. 440. 2 P. Wins.
110. Fitz. Nat. Brev. o"29. 2
Edit.
b
Wins. 111.
Ambl. 303. Lord RayP.
S. C.
lVes.313.
e
Beard
v.
Travers, 1
Ves.
313.
Gai van,
Dick. S8.
EQUITY JURISDICTION".
2?8
All Persons,
it
contempt
their
them
Ward with
committed
to
Ward
no contempt
is
been
as a Justice of the
is
this
Commission
If a Lady, a
she
Mar-
Peace
for
Barrister, a
riage of a
against
11
to
in
th.e
Court,
the
execute a Settlement,
if
the
by Imprisonment,
make
case,
where
to
proper Settlement
a
is
ena-
In a very aggravated
Guardian married
his
Ward, who
Where
a Marriage of a
to
Ward
it
of Court, without
all
Moore
v.
Moore, 2 Atk.
157.
h
2 Atk. 173.
be ordered to
S.
C.
mentioned
Ambl.304.
k
Wms.
5G0,
INFANTS.
attend, and the
not to
W.jfe's visits;
may be compelled
time, the
'",)
Husband may
charged, on executing
and restrained
and she,
leave her
to
committed, but
some
will be
Husband
close confinement^
made some
S7fl
it
seems,
Husband
after
petition to be dis-
Settlement, approved by
the Master.
The
personal
and marrying a Ward, has been dispensed with, on offering to go before the Master,
off with,
and
":
in
some
he
cases,
make
this,
be cleared
q
.
is
r
;
and
contempt
And though
Ward
comes
Marriage in Scotland,
was
filed,
',
a Marriage has
of Court, and
to
Bill
some years
elapse
before
70.
Stevens
Juu. 154'
v.
Herbert's
it
Savage,
(.'use,
it
will
Vet,
^ P. Wins.
10.
s
SulU*
572.
v.
Kavijjnou, G Yes,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
280
it
will
todo v
v
.
is
its
it
much
of Court,
will
Woman
If a Beggar mar-
Fortune, the
Court
but
the
if
is
be paid
such
to
as considerable
fortune
a Settlement
by the
The
usual
to the
to
Hus-
Provi-
twenty-one or Marriage, or
that child
1
and
and
lb. 302.
* Ball v. Coutts, 1 Ves.
*
p.
See Chassaing
5 Ves.
17.
and
303.
v.
Parsonage,
of*
in the event of a
Beames, 297.
Beames,
if
ages
second Marriage^
INFANTS.
power
to the
Wife
261
to charge,
by way of appoint-
by the
of no Children,
Limitation,
is,
first
Marriage
Husband
the
in default
In case
surviving,
the
of appointment, to her
z
.
accumulation
to
be
in-
dicted,
On
prisonment.
his Petition
to
be discharged,
Interest,
by
his
in his favor
Wife \
exclusive
said, a
is
Party
may and
it
has been
ought to be indicted
is
Common Law,
which,
AYhere an Infant
to
a conspiracy at
Ves. 15.
b
Millet
v,
Rowse, 7 Ves.
not
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
262
eumstances: so that
if
is
cirr
may
in strict-
ness, forfeited,
plication,
is,
think
to
fit
in fault
rt
In
It
Wards
of a Court of Equity
f
.
11
but,
it
Law
own
combe
and
lane, 1
see what
Dinnford and
Bro. C. ( 100; but
see
is
It has,
'.
19
upon
her,
which
determined,
casts
however, been
may by
a Join-
Carruthers v. Carruthers,4Bro.
C. C. 510. Canpel v. Buckle,
2 P. Wms. 244. J.acy v. 3Ioore,
3 Bro. P. C. 514. Price v.
Srys, Barn. 117. Seamer v,
Bingham, 3 Atk. 5(5.
Clough v. Clough, 5 Ves.
717. 8. C. before Lord Thurlow,
'
in
is
\ Bro. C. C. 11$.
INFANTS.
to
Dower
upon a remote contingency,
but
And
though,
Dower,
as
not certain,
it'
283
if
in general, a
certain
as
hel
it
same
the
if
Father or Guardian,
make an
in order to
effectual Settlement
Feme Infant
":
",
has
it
seized in fee,
on
may
and that
Court of Equity
will
to her
Husband,
Law
But
this doctrine
Lord
is
way,
as
it
Wife
Court
will do
it:
as if the
more than an adequate consideration for the Settlement that the Husband makes, and if after the
Marriage the
who would
them by
be entitled
to
the Settlement,
it
would
in that case
v. Drury, or
Karl of Bucks", by
which name it is reported, in
5 Bj-o. P. Cases 570.
See Canruthers v. Carruthers,4 Bro.C.C. 500: and see
Smith v. Smith, 5 Yes. 189.
Clough v. Clough, 5 Ves. 710.
See
Prury
'
v.
Drury
11
be
."
ford,
EQUITY JURISDICTION,
S4
There
cases
are
to
in regard
may bind
riage,
but then
the Child,
the
the Settlement
Portions
in possession or Contingency*,
especially
Money
it
must be
before
Mar-
for the
the Husband, as
it
is
a personal thing,
And
Property in
would be
imme-
it,
this kind,
Parents or
Guardians act fraudulently ox corruptly, the Marriage Agreement is not therefore to be set aside, or
the Children to be stript, but the Father or Guardian will be decreed to
the
Husband
and reasonable
date
for instance,
intrusts
Judgment
If,
female
to her of one-tenth
Law
Infant
Infant, marries a
is
made
must be fair
but inequality between the
a Settlement.
Dower
and
*.
Settlement to bind an
Dower and
satisfaction,
if
do so likewise
make
of
the
value
made
yet as the
she can-
Seamer
y.
Atk. 55.
' 3 Atk. 613.
Bingham,
1 Bro. C. C. 152.
*
3 Atk. 612.
INFANTF.
And
in
voidable by
the Act3
the
Infant,
may be
it
confirmed by
is
full age, as
a Jointure for
Ifa
by Settlement covenants
settled to certain uses,
nant y
who
adult female,
he
is
maybe
to Infants
traced in a
Ifa Legacy
in
is
it
cannot be so applied,
way
he became a Lunatic,
it
him
may be
it
:
as
where
and
into orders,
was applied
in hissupport*.
This Petition,
the
King
as
to the propriety of
for;
and
if
after
now
Thoruburgli,
v.
Smith
v.
Low,
Atk.
490.
Slocombe
Bro. C. C. 548.
Barton
v.
Cooke,
5 Ves.
4G3.
- x
to
had recourse
Franklin
Vera. 132.
and
are
disused,
v.
Glubb,
Vid. Sir
Humphry Mack-
461
Mr. Raithby's note.
b
Hesketh v. Lee, 2Sannd.
worth's- Case, 1 Vera.
96.
ft.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
280
5.
PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENTS.
SPECIFIC
The
Chancellor to enforce
Jurisdiction of the
the Specific
By
the
Common Law,
no proper Conveyance
Right of
transfer the
to
itself,
ed,
fore,
man covenanted
damages.
to settle his
mages
at
Lands upon
valuable consi-
Law
for the
Thing
for a
there-
If,
itself.
for the
Settlement of the
much
to
was
in
actually to perform
who had
conscience
make compensation
where
it
was
than
less
it,
but also
in his
power,
The earliest
the
for
b
.
v. Lord Baltimore,
440.
b
See on this subject Alley
Deschamps, 13 Ves. 226".
1 Ves.
v.
in the Year
Book
PERFORMANCE CF AG
IFIC
of 8 K.
1
1.
where
b.
BE U
It
2S7
E2i TS.
it is
it
my
yon
promise,
Chief Justice,
Fincu.v,
upon the
And
in
for
if a
man
and that he
by such
estate therein
a day,
make him an
and he do not make
will
be observed
ges
At whatever time
into
by competent
to
may compel
it is
in that,
now
but
him
lies
him."
it
is
and
Parties,
is,
in the
nature
Law
The
d
.
such cases
Court,
and so
it
it
is
has
to give
is
it
at
but
damages
it is
not an arbitrary
and capricious, but a regulated and judicial, discretion^ a discretion, governed by established
Rules of Equity
been said
It has
rectly
c
*.
',
Hall
see post.
v.
Warren,
9 Ves.
'White
v.
Dodsley
Ves.
Ambl. 400.
Damon, 7
Ves.
Duke
Goring
v.
Naslv,
3 Atk.
188.
h
C08.
Lord
v.
Kinner>ley,
Marquis of Normanby v.
of Devonshire, 2 Ireew.
216. "1 Vern. 159.
'
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
233
was sent
to
Law, and
way of damages,
he
if
the Court
must
riage,
to
to her
Husband, Equity
tioned
mond
':
m
,
Law
laid
The effect
of Land,
is in
many
it is
respects
very different at
in Equity.
At Law,
the
v.
Farrell,
Betresworth
and
Paul's,
1:
Money
r v p l B ro u
to
consid
is
sequences
:red as
arise,
Con*
as
it is
had been
considera-
and
so,
as
the time to
if
the
whether
it
Conveyance, consi-
for the
The
Vendor*.
made
v
,
is
chargeable,
is
is
to
the Ileal
foT a valuable
if it
as to the:
not so in
is
is,
281)
Freehold or Copyhold",
Vendee
It
Vendee'.
b/e
be done
e m i:nt.
it i;
Vendee
of the
that
KC or a
"'',
cteviseablc
Estate, pro-
considered as
and vendible,
by him,
even
under
y
.
money,
So,
Land,
is
7 Ves.
v. Slade,
and Bee the Reasons in
Cave
a.
"
id Holford,
!iro.
Seton
'274.
the inci-
no longer consid
It is
all
Monk, 10
P.
ton
Brome
and Slade,
C. 602.
274.
4 See Frederick
v. Frederick,
P. Wms. 713. Lechmere and
Earl of (Anil,!.', 3 P, Wms.
x
Potter v. Potter,
437. (Gibson v. Lord
ford, I Ves. 494.
Paine
v. Meller,
302.
215. Bash
v.
Dalway, 3 Atk.
5;:3.
'
'
Seewhal
Sir
7 Yes.
1
Ves,
Mountfl
Ves.
Thomas Sevell
says in Fletcher
\ es,
and.
Ves.
v.
Ashburner,
G87.
1 Bro. C, C. 497.
* Earl of Pembroke v.
Bowden, 3 Ch. Rep, 115. S. ( '.
2Vem. 52. Lechmere v. Earl
of Carlisle, 3 P. Wms. 217.
VOL.
I.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
290
(a singular decision,
constantly adhered
to,
Dower out
cannot claim
Land by Will
of
Money,
it
and by a Will
as personal Estate,
much
may pass
as so
Wife
indeed, the
If,
Money under
as
,)
passes as
It
Money
it
his
intention,
it
8.
Estate,
some
k
;
Conveyance
Purchaser
Representatives of the
Sweetapple
v.
Bindon, 2
between the
the
menEdwards
v. Countess of Warwick, 2 P.
Wms. 171 and see Wheldale
tioned,
v.
'
the
The same
purchase and a
entitled to
Money h
particularly
Wms.
PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENTS.
SPECIFIC
Death of
afifectingit
lateral
291
Heir"
,)
(even
a col-
on the com-
entitled to insist
is
the
",
an Estate Tail
Agreement
bound
to
perform
may
tative
if
there
for
q
,
it;
enforce
Money
r
;
an
is
of the Vendor
the Heir
is
it
against the
Purchase
not a
is
'.
effectual
but
title,
Money
Vendee
entitled
is
and
to
the
though
to be performed,
it
sell
Legavd
47S.
(..ill
s
.
If the
Land agreed
v. Hodges, - Ves.
and Vermedun, 2
Seton
Slade,
Lifebury, 2 Eq. Abr. 82; and see
Jackson against Lever, 3 lira.
C. C. G05. a very hard case; see
also Lacon v. Mertins, 3 Atk.
1. and Potter v. Potter, 1 Ves.
437.
ai
Lingen v. Sowray, i P.
Wms. 172. S. C. in Gilb. 91.
and in 10 Mod. 39. Count ss of
Freemj
199.
Ves. 274.
v.
Winged
v.
be sold, be
Bo
n
Seton v. Slade, 7 Ves.
274. liuckmaster v. Han op,
7 Ves. 341. andS. C. 13 Ves.
Pitt,
Vid.
Green
P.
v,
Wms.
719.
Smith, 1 Atk.
573.
1 Anstr. 14.
Wms.223
to
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
292
after the
Agreement into
and
effect';
cases of this
in all
may
to
Such
is
Covenant by a Joint-tenant
to
sell,
severs
Law
And where
a Surrender
by
Tenant
If a
covenants to
w
.
Copyholder, would
the
sell
or
x
.
for Life,
make such
it
iu
being in the
if
Tenant
make
Lease
bound
And
y.
in like
manner, contracts
for
is
Join-
make
a charge of
any description
man
A
'
z
.
Hinton
v.
Hinton, 2 Vern.
640.
v
Best and Stamford, 1 Salk.
35*.
w
Browne v. Raindal, 3 Ves.
257. and
v.
see Partriche
IVnvlet, 2 Atk. 54. contra diet.
2 Vein. b-:.
x
Jlinton v. Hinton, Ambl.
277. S. C. 2 Ves. 633. overruling Musgrave v. Dashwood,
2 Vem. 63.
7
Shannon v. Bradstreet,
1 Sch. and Lefr. 52.
lb. 60.
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF AG RE L U
Tenant for
Life, in
23
:.N IS.
if partly
seen,
Tenant
done
is
for Life,
Upon
principally, as
it is
which
to the
Re-
Remainder-man,
If the
though
for
personal, and
mainder-man
bound,
is
could
it
after the
acquiesced,
it
would be
considered as done,
it
death of the
is
different1*.
agreed to be
Man, who
in consideration
covenanted
to take
up
his
same manner,
as if the
in performance of his
It has
what
is
Covenant c
in general,
is
considered as done
it
is
Agreement,
not without
for instance, to
its
Rule that
seems
it
though
it
ope-
An
and
exceptions.
*
Shannon r. Bradstreet,
Sch. -and l.efr. 72.
b
lb. 73. Styles v. Cowper,
3 Atk. 692,
for
it is
sideration,
tioned,
in the
of the
notice
v.
Frederick
Frederick,
710. S. C
P. Wins.
Ants, p 289
'
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
294
Covenant
a Recovery
or to suffer
5
,
to levy
aFine f r
Covenant
Court
Heir
bargain
Rule
an Entail
relates to
made by
his
to
the
the
comply with a
Nor does
'.
the
hold, in regard to
entitled
Equity,
in
to
Ancestor
if
it
Husband'.
So,
Body
if
is
corporate, having a
Renewal of a
for the
paid,
it
may be
is
doubtful,
He would
Renewal
With
certainly be en-
1
.
we may now
pro-
EchlifFe v.
Ves.
2<J7.
Baldwin,
and see
diet,
10
in
Maxims in Equity,
Attorney General and Day,
1 Ves. 223. Cotter and Layer,
2 P. Wms. 025. and what is
said in Kolt v. Holt, 2 P. Wms.
620. and L Atk. 9. Ambl.
278. 1 Dick. 34. 3Bro. 53S.
h
See 1 Vern. 13, 440. 2
Vern. 133, 702. and the cases
Francis's
3 Atk. 687.
k
ton, 3
v.
Bamp-
PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENTS.
SPECIFIC
The
be specifically performed.
to
2<J5
Kule
general
seems
to be, that
Agreement must,
and fair m
The
also,
<<jual
doctrine
Parties to contract,
ability of
Equity as to the
in
general, governed
is, in
by the
The doctrine as
coverts.
to Infants
Feme
is
Feme
upon
enlarge upon
topic,
hereafter.
It
that
who
after the
With
is
is
Agreements,
it
is
to
be observed, that a
may be
discharged by Parol
dize;
as a Bargain for
damages
in these cases
be recovered
in
an
Owen
v.
Parol
any
to
binding, and
Com
relate to
v
,
Merchan-
in
performance of con-
which
Chattels, oy
is
Law
but in general, a
for
Estate
extent,
tracts
if
11
Gibbons
v.
Caunt,
847, 8, 9.
p
Cud and
tit.
EQUITY JURISDICTION,
296
bought
Such
q.
decided at La\v
be
to
Specific performance,
in the case of a
Chattel
Cases of contracts
matters in the
ing
is
way
general
this
Contracts
for
it
relate to Realty,
person agrees
if a
on a particular liking to
is
of Trade.
for the
may
Lands,
for
enforce a spe-
sonalty
as
by Instalments,
in a certain
number of
Man
*.
years,
So,
if
tity of
Laud, agrees
to apply
the
bandry
in
Land
or
if
Man
wanting
to a
these cases,
particular sort of
as
Hus-
q
See Nutbrowne v. Thornton,
10 Yes. 101 and see Mason
and Armitage, 13 Ves. 37.
Buxton v. Lister, 3 Atk.
;
383,
8
In
Wms.
per
Mb.
Cud
070.
v.
Rutter,
IP.
385.
Taylor v.
trailed, 3 Atk.
x
Neville,
38-1.
men-
$07
>.
Statute (29
the
JJy
Qetion shall
it
Cur.
3.
9.
whereby
be brought,
4.)
8.
no
charge a
to
or Sale
in
or
Agreement
therewith, or
lawfully authorized.
The
riage,
seems
supposed so
to be, that in
many unguarded
expressions and
in order
to
Mar-
Husband
Writing,
Nor
will a written
the Mar-
recognition after
asre
riage, of a Parol
But
b
.
v.
Lister,
P.
h
Montacute
Wms.
v.
Statute'.
Maxwell,
618,
Randall
v.
Morgan, 12
V.
9.
* Vid.wbat
is said
Arg. in
Montacute v. Maxwell, IP.
Wins.
2Vern.S22.
and Wadsworth, 6
and
also 11
(319.
East.
(JO'2.
EastJ 362.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
298
Marriage, however,
is
Frauds
by Auction
Sales
Frauds
it
b
,
are
c
,
much
insisted on
d
.
If,
of the
and renders
it
a sufficient written
son
to
Agreement
and
be bound
h
g:
and even a
Montacute
v.
Maxwell,
C.C.400.Du;idassandDutens,
Jun. 199.
Blagden v. Bradbear, 12
1 Ves.
1
Ves. 466.
c
Attorney General v. Day,
1 Ves. 218.
d
Welford v. Beazely, 3Atk.
503.
e
Clinan v. Cooke, 1 Sch.
and Lefr. 33. overruling what
is saidin Binstead v. Coleman,
in
383; and
see Brodie
and
St.
Paul,
503. Cooke
420.
Frauds,
not decided
is
Where
there
is
contents, signs as
k
.
Agreement
a compleat
ing,
299
is
aity and
a Witness only,
in writ-
knows
the
this has
but
writes
ment,
be also signed
ineffectual, unless
it is
With
an Agent
by
holden,
tion,
lawful///
is
contains in
else shews,
the
itself,
or
Buyer
and
note or
his
by reference
sidered as a
There
are,
as to
be decreed
to
v.
Lands
Ch.
_"
77.
Bawd
Tumour,
18
v.
a v.
Amhurst, Prec.
V.'aller v.
is
not in
1*.
writing,
as
tit.
it
will
where a parol
is
1'reco-
Clinan v.
Cooke, 1 Sell, and Lefr. 31.
The note in 7 fast, 5C5, stating
that the Agent's Authority
must be in writing, is a mistake.
p Coles v. Trecothick,9 Ves.
thick,
252. S.
i.
sufficient to
40-'.
VOL.
something
Beazely, 3 Atk.
503 ; and see Coles v. Trecothick, 9 Ves. 2^4.
m Hawkins v. Holmes, 1 P.
1
if it
is,
memorandum
be performed
Agreement has
Morison
Agreement
Ves. 175.
AVelford
receipt
to
Wms.
has been
it
".
of an Agreement,
authorized,
be in writing
An
it
the Agree-
Heelis,
u6*
Ves. 250.
C. MS. Emmerson
2 Taunt. 38.
r.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
300
admitted, or proved
as
may be
it
by
the cause
Master
5
.
In these
cases,
ground of Fraud
1
,
relief
administered on the
is
on
its
then,
unconscien-
imperfection, and
Equity
Mr.
hearing of
on the
or,
such cases,
in
is
a species
It is true,
Law,
as well as in
Equity; but he
Common Law
Equity. It
is
deference be
it
of
stooct,
greatly in Courts
said)
The
Judges, (with
after-
under-
Lord Eldon, speaking of Mr. Justice Buller, observed, " With all the veneration and respect due
to so great a judicial character, the point in which
seems to have
it
q See Daniel
1C Ves. 249.
r
1 Ves. 221.
Allan
v.
v.
failed,
Davidson,
Bower, 3Bro.C.
that
is,
he thought too
is
directed.
BPEGIFIC I'EBl'OUMANCEOf
confidently, that
AGREEM ENTS.
understood
lie
reli
ground of part-performance,
all
'i"l
the doctrine of
-i'
is
frequently laid*
some
seem*
rather
it
have
to
ground
the Lessor,
Certain
who was
it is,
dying, executing a
therefore,
luntary
Act%
the
after
but whether
that
it
',
is,
to the
it
Lease.
this species of
If,
preventing
in
mere vo-
Agreement
d
,
but
have been done unless on account of the Agreement', an Act, in short, unequivocally referring
to,
and such,
Fraud
to
by the Refusal
Marquis of T^wnshend v.
room, ti Ves. 833.
r
See what Lord Redesdale
says, Bond and Hopkins, I Sen.
and Lefr. 403. and Mitfqrd's
*
Treatise.
to
2. c. 3.
As in Robertson agairist
John, 2 Bro. C. C, 140.
c
See
Bro.
C.
('.
Sr.
412.
Cooke,
Soli,
EQUITY JURISDICTION,
502
ment:
in
performance,
if
is
acts of part
performance
is,
the Statute
h
.
these
Frauds in refusing to
as before observed,
k
.
The
make
it
it,
as
that the
" Part performance might be evidence of some Agreement, but of what must be
Agreement.
left to
Ilollis
Wills
378.
v.
Stradling,
Ves.
hurst,
346.
k
'
1 Bro. C. C.
Walker
100.
v.
413, 417.
Walker, 2 Atk,
have held
but
it
Money
to
ought
have been
to
c:ases are
303
laid out,
repaid.
Those
Compensation.
very dissatisfactory.
was very
It
not be
It
right
an engine of
They
it
Man
circumstance of a
deal of Money,
prove that he
ninety-nine years
for
is
to
have a Lease
The common
sense of the
tiling
for
case ."
ings,
pressed a determination
feel-
judicial career
a
Lawyer, ex-
The
cases are
numerous
in regard to
what
If the Vendee,
Sale of Lands,
this has
ance
q
;
on a parol
is let into
been held
a fortiori,
if
to
and
v.
in
lUiv,
General
v.
Ves. '221.
Lefr. 5.
the
amount
Attorney
for
to a part
perform-
Agreement
acts
30i
EQUITY JURISDICTION".
them
or builds'; and if what was the parol
Agreement clearty appears, it will be enforced *.
The payment of Money, either in part, by way
r
of earnest, or, in
it
cases
for the
full,
seems, deemed
a part performance
In some,
are contradictory.
holden that
Money
if
v
;
not,
but the
has been
purchase
sum
purchase Money,
is
not w
but Lord
of the purchase
money
performance
a part
is
it
paid, that
is
that a small
purchase,
will, in
no
ease,
payment
amount
to
Conveyance,
is
And where
Agreement for a
of the Estate by Arbi-
Hawkins
Wms.
s
v.
as acts oi'pai
Holmes, IF,
770.
p. 40.
p.
Mai
te
v.
Melbourne,
s.720, LaconandMertius,
37.
1
fr.
performa^ic^
Boardman
v.
Mostyn, G
3 Atk. 4.
x
Clinan
Ves. 470.
v
'
r.
Cooke, 1 Sch.
2.
*
Redding
v.
Wilkes, 3 Bro.
C. C. 400. Cook v.
2 Anstr. 425.
*Cooth
v.
Tombs,
Jackson^ 6 Ves.
4L
306
Performance
of course be decreed
it,
it
will
''.
and
Agreement
no parol
Defendant
And
execute
to
in
it
c
.
denied
yet, if
'\)
is
admitted
by
must be admitted or
the Defendant insists upon the
it
seems
Statute of Frauds, a
not be enforced
by the
confessed
it
Performance
Specific
But
will
if
is
and a
it,
f
.
for a separate
such Agreement
Husband and
articles
rests in
The
the Wife.
between the
Spiritual
Court,
r
'
Ambl. 586.
Fitzgerald,
Spurrier
v.
Yes. 548.
c
Whitchurch against Bevis,
2 Bro. C: C. 667. Whatey v.
Bugenal.G Bro. P. C. 45."
(5
and the
principal case.
Roue
Teed, 14 Yes.
Jackson,
Ves.
SO. Blagdeu v. Bradhear, 12
Ves.
471. Prec.
Ch. 208.
*
v.
375. Cooth
VOL.
v.
I.
Cilb.
Child
v.
contra
Dick.
30.
f
Cooth v. Jackson,
Ves.
37 and see Moore v. Edwards,
4 Ves. 24. Whitchurch against
Bevis, 2 Bro. C. C. 550. Whitagainst
bread
Brockhurst,
;
Bio.
General
but
C.
v.
C. 410. Attorney
Day,
Ves. 220, 1.
and Banes,
Prec. Ch. 2G0. S. C. 1 Eq.
see Croyston
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
306
Jurisdiction in casesof alimony, there being then no spiritual coii'ts, nor any toleration
of the civil law; but upon the
From
the
decision of the
" Lords
Commissioners.
Saturday, 24th of July 1052.
between Theodosia Ivie, plaintiff, and Thomas Ivie, her husband, defendant.
Whereas, the Plaintiff having exhibited her petition
(against the Defendant her
husband,) to be relieved for
alimony, unto which, the defendant having put in his an-
divers witnesses
swer,
for
were
others
examin-
father
so settled
in
and
permit
or
she shall nominate and
appoint, from time to time,
suffer
whom
the
Plaintiff,
SPECIFIC
that purpose
PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENTS.
307
might be decreed
';
was determined
Agreement
consideration,
it
may
be specifically enforced,
and
at the suit
this,
quietly,
tion, to
profits
nify so
much
unto
t! ir lord-
sbips,
300
per
of the Wife,
annum
(quarterly,
k
;
his
by subsequent Chan-
contained
the
contrary
notwithstanding.)
Hob. Dod, Dep. Regis. The
defendant considered himself
a much
aggrieved by this
decree, and brought an action against a Mr. Williamson, who detained his wife, and
under the directions of Lord
Ch. Justice Roles, obtained a
verdict for ^100, and an exeeution afterwards issued; but
he filed his bill in Equity, for
an injunction, and it was obtained, and thereby the plaintiff and others were enjoined,
under the penalty of 500,
against
proceeding on the
Upon this, the
judgment.
plaintiff petitioned, " the Parliament forthe commonwealth
of England ;'' but what whs
to
in anywise,
done upon
not appear.
b
Lady Head v. Sir Francis
Head, l'Ves. 17. S. C. 3 Atk,
550.
See for instance, Angieraud
'
MS.
Guth
Guth, 3 Bro,
v.
G14 and see Fitzer v, Fitaer,
2 Atk. 511,
X 2
EQUITY JURISDICTION'.
308
cellors',
marriage cases in
upon an Agreement
neral,
Those
to separate,
have been,
in
ge-
and Wife m
or
been
Trust
Property,
Court of Equity
bound
in
or
obtainable
The
to
only
Wife, certainly,
in
is
not.
against her p
and
toby Re-
as against Creditors/
it
seems,
separation
s
.
Dick. 791.
"'
Sterling
2 Vern. 385.
Crawley,
v.
Stephens and
Sidney
Sidney, 3 P.
observed on ia
Legard and Johnson, 3 Ves>
350. 360.
p See Lord St. John v. Lady
St. John, 11 Ves. 533.
Wms.
v.
269.
Lord
St.
John
v.
Lady
St.
STECIFIC
A parol
PERFORMANCE OF ACRtE.MCNTS.
Agreement
30<)
an equality of partition,
for
who had
a right to
contract,
Joint-tenant upon
equality of partition,
thinks
uncertain ad-
Land
rior value
not vacate
to the other,
Agreement"
will
it
of supethe
is
Covenant
Wife
b
.
made
executed
6
-,
renewal
of
but a Covenant
has been
specific
Covenant
for perpetual
Renewal \
performance of an Agreement
for a Lease,
642.
Mb.Sed.
c
Hyde
Skynner, 2 P.
Wins. 190.
d
Furnivaland Crew, 3 Atk.
v.
83.
* Moore v. Foley,
C Ves.
232. Iggulden v. May, 9 Vea.
325. and see 3 vol. HargraVe's
Jurisconsult Exercitatioiftj, on
but,
it
appears, that
subject of
this
case.
Bridges v. Hitchcock, 1 Bro.
P. C. 522. Bettesworth Against
Dean of St. Paul's, 8 Bro. P. C.
389. Somerville v. Chapman,
the
sell v.
Darwin, mentioned in
King
Anstr. bU,
v.
AYiglituian,
EQUITY JURISDICTION'.
310
where the Vendor of a Lease has continued in possession, and in consequence of a Suit, time has
by the
Purchaser, on
his
by the Vendor g
in
Man may
be
h
;
to procure his
or
to join in a Surrender of a
Copyhold
And
it is
Wife
and with
if
in
Feme
making
her to perform
the
Agreement
k
;
her conscience
being bound.
So,
if a
Husband
Wife
Husband covenanting
for his
Wife, states
and
offers to
as if the
Dyer
Rust
v. Ilargrave,
v.
lOVes.
Stephenson, 7
Ves. 474; and see Hall v.
Hardy, 3 P. Wins. 187. and
Barringtoa v. Rome, 2 Eq.
Abr. 17. PI. 7. 5 Vin. 547. the
case of a Fine agreed to be
'
Morris
same situation
505.
and
in the
v.
procured;
place,
see also
the
Berry
v.
Steed
against
v.
Cragh, 9
Dennisou,
Agreement,
it
be enforced"
to join in
and
that
to
if
311
to
in the
do
viz.
he should account to
Money
received in respect
of the Agreement".
It
seems,
however,
doubtful, whether
very
to sell the
Lord
to
Coicpcr refused to
Husband, that
In one case,
his
it is
laid
down
that
hand
a
if
Fine
a
Husband
convey
nia
by articles under
Wife's Lands to B., B. may prefer his Bill against
the Husband and Wife to compel a specific execution of this Agreement, and if the Wife upon
his
agrees
it
to
Court
will de-
would decree a
Husband
if
to convey,
Fmery
Wase, 5 Ves. 8 II
b VeS 84S:
p Outread
v.
Round, Yin.
Abr. tit. Baron and F^me,
(11. b.j Ca. 4. S. C. 2 Eq. Abr.
v.
C on Appeal,
145,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
312
Husband
The
''.
sought
ly
of Covenants
specific performance
in
Equity
of Lands, agrees
by
is
frequent-
Articles, to settle
Lands of a
mentioned
So,
make
in the Articles
where Tenant
such Jointure,
.=
Life,
for
500,
a Jointure of
Marriage, and of
of
in consideration
make
covenants to
10,000,
with power to
a lien
it,
it
on the Es-
for the
has
Feme
the
5
.
Where
Sum
Copyhold
for
q
71
,)
equal", or greater
it,
presumed
he
to
is
(unless the
Rep. 267.
r
Houndell
v.
Breary, 2
Vern. 482. coniirmed, 3 Atk.
327, 9. Coventry v. Coventry,
Gilh. 1CS.
w
;
Land be
for
it
is
and
PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENTS.
SPECIFIC
Man
may
it is
bound
is
313
do an Act,
to
of doing that
The
seems
cases,
why
reason
it is
to
do \
held a satisfaction
Court
n these
will not
draw
in
nant
If
Lands,
it
Evidence that
as
Covenant
struction
c
;
d
.
In one case
tract to settle
it
was held
that, if there
it is
a question
damages
are, in
contract
to
which
it
was
be a conthere
try
what the
said to differ
421.
01'.),
mere
v.
from a
3 P.
of damages,
note,
is
Wms.
Wer-
v.
Garthshore
v.
Chalie,
10
Ves. 10.
c
Deacon
v.
Smith, 3 Atk.
320.
d
97.
Tooke
v.
Hastings, 2 Vern.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
314
would be decreed
e
be purchased
to
but previous
as the doctrine
it
such a Covenant,
if for
would be deemed
and
all
yet, in Equity,
a valuable consideration,
lien
specific
on the Lands,
Lands on
Wife
his
as a specific lien
covenant operates
But a covenant
and afterwards,
for life,
to settle
on the Lands.
must come
Master
lien,
in as a Creditor in general,
and the
Where
Husband covenants
Lands
that
set-
tled, are
a covenant
on
must be calculated
at the
h
and not to the death of the Husband
c
Wade
C. C. 368
Paget,
v.
;
and
see
Bro.
Vernon
v.
Dedire,
Coventry
v.
P. Wms. 429.
Coventry, Gilb.
Rep.
1GC and
Max.
cit.
at end of Francis*
Fonbl. Eq. 359.
n. (d).
Freemoult
v.
Dedire, 1 P.
Wms. 429.
h
Speake
217.
v.
Speake,
Vera.
PERFORMANCE OF AfiREEMEMj,
SPECIFIC
If a
Husband covenants
him
so
covenant*.
to an
Heir
It is the
to
performance of his
sum of Money
cestor, a
Lands descend
lets
at
on the eldest
to settle
far,
31j
in
Land
to be laid out in
v
.
sumed performance,
are
in the suffering
any declaration
Land
what way he
is
must be according
struction
to the
affected
by the Agreement.
Will
Agreement
as
itself will
be
Where,
therefore,
Money,
it
Law, but
sum
of
as a per-
sonal covenant
suable at
a lien upon
titled
If a
the
to have
it
specifically performed.
sum of Money,
belaid out
in
it
k
1
dies,
1.
lb.
Sir Prime
might be a question,
Representative, how
2 Ves. 4 LI.
it
seems, decided,
and Personal
'
no where,
as creating
v,
Stebbing,
m Legard
muck of the
v. Hodges, 3 Bro,
C. C. 531, and 8. C. on rhearing, 4 Bio. C, C. 421.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
31(>
money
to
is
but
if
makes
in
how much
Lease-
as
personal Representative
a general devise of
all
his
Will
his Freehold
and
the^oOO".
It is observable that
considered as
where money
in
will,
it
Land
agreed or
is
Land, to be settled to
uninvested, be
whilst
in regard to succession,
and
to dispose of the
to
be purchased,
as the Land,
same manner
Land
purchased,
if
until
limitation of
the uses, shall clearly^manifest and decide his intention to terminate the realizing Trust, and to
dispose
of,
or
And where
and directed
sum
of
money
given by Will,
is
to be laid
of
such Persons
the Court
is,
if
a Bill
to direct
filed,
3 Atk. 1 14.
Palteney v. Darlington,
the course of
to go, as the
n
See Guidot v. Guidot,
3Atk.254.
See Attorney General and
JUilner,
is
TBro.P.
Land
C. 548.
itself,
till
Toml. Ed,;
v.
Sounder;,
v. Gee,
PERFORMANCE
SPr.CIFIC
purchased
So,
OF AGREEMENTS.
by Will
there be a direction
if
which
317
swallow-
is
the direction
it*
such
purchase an Estate in
to
is
county, ami
cannot be procured,
it
the
laid
in
who would
have the
out
sole Interest
same
the
iu
in case of a bequest of
wife
is
in
Tail,
Land
money
to
for
money
be
Reversion to her in
fee,
it
in
v
,
the
laid out*.
or for her in
it
laid
out in Land.
money, an enquiry
on one
settled
is
devised to be laid
be
it
as to the disposition of
out
And
Land\
in
Court
is
to
be laid out
for Life,
will
is
in
Land, to
with Remainder in
Money upon
the
Maxima inEq.
r
2 Atk.
Ves. 610.
Benson
Wms.
130.
3G9.
v.
and see 10
Benson,
P.
* Seeley v. Jago, 1
P. Win?,
389.
v
Pearson v. Brereton, 3 Atk.
71.
Binford v. Borden, 1 Ves.
Jan. 512; and see Oldham v.
llu-hcs, 2 Atk. 453. Traftbrd
v. Boehm, 3 Atk. 447. Cun-
ningham v. Moody,
1 Ve9. 17t>.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
318
Bent
if)
Tail
x
,
in Tail, as she
be
the Land,
r
;
would
if
the
her consent 2 .
If,
Tail,
on
A.
Remainder
settled
to
Remainder to B, in
fee, the Money was not
Life,
for
in
application by
directed to be paid on an
A. and
% and held
that doctrine
that the
his chance, as
Remainder-
he could not be
it
to be paid in
Money and
;
der-man's interest
in so glaring a light,
that
it
But where the remainder can be barred by Fine, the Court will
decree the
Money
e
.
(1
see Forester,
272.
See note G. to Eyre's case,
3 I\ Wms. 14,
lb.
PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENTS.
Sl'ECIFIC
And now, by
56.)
c.
it
40 Geo.
order
in
Tenant of the
Petition of the
3.
Money
is
319
bar the
to
Estate Tail,
first
may
if
any
in
But
under
And
this
Act
be
if it
ful
Equity
of
is
doubt-
entitled to,
it
Master
and a Petition
will not
be suffered
l
.
that the
be heard on the
is
last
such a period of
time for a Recovery
at
If the application
Money
Fund
to obtain
must be made
the application
purpose
for that
is
made
in
ordered to be paid to
is
Having
considered those
cases
in
which a
we may now
pro-
Ex
parte Sterne,
6 Ves.
150.
b
57G.
'
Ex
to
Fletcher
Ex
v.
Toilet,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
320
perforIt
is
defec-
111
on
It is
this
ground
that,
generally speaking,
a Bill
Agreement respecting
specific performance of an
diattels
to decree a specific
mance of a covenant
to
for
perfor-
Law
pit,
in an
u
.
Agreement
creed
11
to
,)
build an
House
differently
% and
seems that
it
but
if it is
pressed
Errington
v.
describe
Aynesley,
Ui3.
lb.
159.
Scliolefield
v.
C, 313. Flint
v.
and
it is
2 Bro. C. C. 341.
m Mint v. Brandon, 8 Ves.
n
is in its
Brandon,
it
on a
nature
would be decreed
distinctly
if
is,
re-
and
PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENTS.
6PECIFIC
321
not
Bill will
lie for
a specific performance of
l
.
under a Decree, a
Bill for
lie,
A Party
must come,
as
it is
said,
Defendant, therefore, to a
formance of an
Court of Equity,
.
Agreement,
allowed to
is
A
per-
resist
it,
Plaintiff
is
Bill,
scientious*; or
unfairness",
ing
it
and
in
Mosely
'
is
v.
is
permitted
Street
Virgin, 3 Ves.
though parol
Itigby,
Mort-
G Ves.
Anne.-doy v. Ashurst, 3 P.
Wffls. 282.
" Caduiauv. Horner, IS Ye?.
11.
"
J 1.
v.
Cadman
Buxton
v.
Horner, 18 Ves.
v. Lister,
3 Atk.
attend-
C. C. 326. alluded to in
81S.
VOL.
for
locke
v.
185.
1
circumstances
Evidence
or other
234;
Savage
v.
'Taylor,
Child
erq. 71.
anil see
v.
For.
Daw-
ridge, 2 \
Scott v.
Murray, 1 Ves 2.
a
C agg v. Holme, mentioned in note to Cooke v. Clayworth, IS Ves. 14. and approved (ib.) p. 15. but see
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
3-22
to explain,
add
>
to,
,)
admissible on
is
it
it
inequitable to in-
sum was
but
it
it
Evidence
it
representation,
it
Where
an
Ramtbottom
Agreement
Gosden,
and see
what is said in Butler v. Cooke,
1 Sch. and Lefr. 39 ; and set
Meeresv. A null, 3 Wjls. 275.
l'i nn v. Lord Baltimore, 1 Ves.
451. Baker v.Payne, 1 Ves.
400. Woolam v. Hearn, 7 Ves.
1 Yes.
lias
v.
C. C. 52.
Robson v. Collins,
7 Ves. 139 and see Marquis
Townshend
v.
Stangroom,
383.
219.
Clark
519.
211, 219.
Buxter
'
LisUr, 3 Atk.
v.
Woollam
v.
v.
Ileum, 7 ^
Grant,
es,
14 Ves.
SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENTS.
3"2J
made
for
lasting
it"
he
sonable, or
reasonable
',
unjust or
or founded on a fraud, or
it
would be
Court of Equity
Heir
if
sells a
them
Reversion
in the life
m
.
So, ifan
of his Father at
An Agreement may
n
.
If variations in an
1".
Agreement, by Parol,
be so acted upon, that the original Agreement cannot be enforced, without injury to one party, that
circumstance would be a bar to a specific performance of such original Agreement* but varia1
remains unaltered
k
Savage
v.
Taylor,
For.
Yes. 299
and see this case
cited by the Chancellor,
Ves.
;
if
othef respects,
2:34.
all
ij
ote Cibbons v.Caunt,
4 Ves. 8*8. Sedvide Woollam
and Hearne, 7 Ves 511.
p Buckhouse
and Crosby,
2 Eq. Abr. 33.
q
Seethe case in 2 Eq. Abr.
48. pi. 10. unci in Yin. Abr.
Tit. Contract and Agreement,
(H.) Ca. 38. and Legal and
Miller, 2 Yes. 299.
r
See Prii;e and Dyer, 17
336.
Yes. 3U4-
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
324
An
Agreement,
the time of
There
it
ground
no
so, at
its
can impeach
impeached, must be
if
a failure in a speculation
to
resist
forms
a specific performance
*.
are,
and hardship
to
has
di-
has
it
a great advantage,
the
if
Parties acting
were mistaken
though
C.
Mortimer
London
Stockley
Atk.
*
v.
v.
Bro.
Nash,
Stockley, 18
v. Stapilton,
*.
and
It
v.
Law
Stapilton,
Counsel.,
x
.
849.
1.
Stapilton
it
wrong opinion of
Weare,
and see
Capper,
fair
will be binding
it
in point of
against
C. 5(i (J
v.
C. C. 150.
u
City of
3 Atk. 516.
T
upon
Atk. 404.
Adams
Bro.
Agreement was
an Agreement,
No Agreement
as, for instance,
it
323
illegal;
is
medium
Nor does
Agreement*.
fruitless a
Voluntary
Party making
a specific
impossible to be done.
it
Court ever do
the
thing, as to decree
mance of acts,
remedy
Conveyance
it,
of an illegal
so"
perfor-
In such case
at
Law b
is
all
hath put
upon
himself,
under
own
Folly ."
his
but he must
As
been shewn
(as hath
Settlement
',)
bad
against Purchasers
and Creditors,
and
to a Purchaser,
who even
uses,
as
even, though
Powell
>'
the
is
there
Johnson
v.
Ogilby, 3 P.
W ms. 279.
Thomson
7 Ves. 473.
b
Green
v.
v.
Thomson,
vSmith,
Atk.
073.
c
Beaumont, 1 Vera.
100, Claveriug and Hill, 1 Etj,
Villersv.
is
made
no Equity
to apply to
Money
to the
;
not
'224,
is
voluntary-
voluntary conveyance
Knowler, 2 Atk,
r.
it
same
if
is
down
lie
to
1 Vera. 101.
e
1 Vcrn,
326
EQtJlTY JURISDICTION.
Money
to the
same uses
Nor where
'.
a Daughter,
on
forced
it
may be
en-
With
regard
to
performance of a
a specific
voluntary Agreement, there are, as Lord King observes m , Precedents both ways.
There are cases
be
it
specifically decreed
.s
ii
n
;
The
cases
later
So,
Pulvertoft
18 Yes. 93
v.
and
it
Buckle
v.
Ch. 464.
Fursacre
Ch.
Robinson,
v.
and see
Peacock v. Monk, 1 Ves. 133.
and what is said in Underwood
v. HUchcox, 1 Ves. 280.
p Penn v.
Lord Baltimore,
1 Ves. 450. and see what is
said iu Williamson v. CodPrec. in
rington,
q
427.
Wiseman
84. Frank v.
gee Edwards
unless incases
Pulvertoft,
see
p.
475
Ves. 514.
Coventry
v.
Coventry, at
Atk. 401.
s
Graham
Jun. 275.
v.
Graham,
1 Ves*
8PBCIFIG I'EitFORMAyer of
will not enforce
I'-
\<
i:
voluntary
performance of marriage
is
<1
such
as the
is
to
Agreement,
the
calls
payment of
effectually made,
veyed
supported
is
it
making
will never
it
what Equity
or at least
valuable,
not sufficient to
those
in
Articles, has
by
327
r.MENTS.
Lands con-
will
execute
as against
power of Revocation
Those cases in which a voluntary conveyance
a sole
kept
in
Life,
and
his
in
possession
at
time of his
the
Stapillon
v.
Stapilton,
and
see
Griffin v. Nanson,
Ves. 356.
Pulvertoft v.
Pulvertoft, 18 Ves. 99. Lech*
Wins, 222,
002;
Pulvertoft,
175. Pulvertoft
v.
18 Ves. 90, 92
ancj see
issaid
in
what
Stephens and True*
;
Ellison
v.
mere
"
v.
Lord
Ellison
v.
Carlisle,
Ellison,
1*.
Ves.
Smith
243.
v
Antrolnis
Ves. 40.
z
Pulvertoft
IS Ves 99.
v.
Smith,
v.
Pulvertoft,
12
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
328
transfer in
quisite to add
to the
ment permitted
the Court was
validity of
it
the instru-
to remain uncancelled
upon
called
re-
and
all
much
as the
Deed,
tate, settled
on him by Mistake,
as voluntary, but
The Court
may be
is
not considered
enforced*.
performance of
mere result
would not disturb a
of Bounty;
Agreement
pursuance of such an
in
*.
it
or produce a Forfeiture
h
.
specific performance
of an agreement for a
it
might be
dis-
c
.
agreement
The
to be
is
Randall v. Randall, 2 P.
404, see Anon. Prec.
Wms.
Ch. 101.
" Willan
v.
Willan, 16 Ves.
82.
* Mortlocke
v. Buller,
10
Ves. 292. S. C. MSS.
b
Brian v. Acton, 5 Vin. Abr.
533. pi. 33.
* Hercey v. Birch, 9 Ves.
d
;
for,
PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENTS.
SPECIFIC
though time
Law,
as at
that
where
yet,
seems,
it
f
,
of the Parties
may induce
B
,
the Court
which
Court
Where
years
h
,
a contract
had long
speaking,
generally
it
the contract
has
is
essential
it is
329
sufficient
of
to dissolve
lain
dormant, thirteen
much
continuance,
less
the contract
for
where
Contract
11
abandonment of the
been done
to be
much more
mance was
refused
Wingrield
'v.
Whaler.
Contract and
Agreement, ^L) Cj.30 ; and see
Moore v. Blake, 1 Ball and
Beatty 02.
Vin. Abr.
tit.
k
Lloyd against Collett, 4
stated in
Bro. C. C. 409. S.
note to 1 Atk. 12.
'
Alley
Ves, 225.
v.
Desehamps,
13
EQUITY JURISDICTION'.
330
It
trifled or
shewn
backward-
Agreement, a
specific
favour, especially
if
in
his
";
part}-
Lord Kenyan
formance".
the
who
first
resisted
is
that
Party cannot
upon
call
Agreement
be paid by
is,
who
if it is
for
not so paid, by
Vendor
no man
Money
is
sells a
discharged
Reversion
is
culous to talk
giving
in particu-
for a
shewn himself
eagerp . If,
a certain time,
held, that a
Court of Equity
lar,
Lord
and
notion,
him
the delay
If the
Money during
r
.
calls, for
for
com-
"B
of
is
>ee
said in
An c
t:-.
]).
18.
92-1.
will not
compel
v. Homphray, 5 Ves.
818.
p See Milward v. Earl Thanet, f> Ves. 720. in note.
q Newman against
RogerCL
4 Bro. C. C. 391.
(iuest
b/393.
SPECIFIC
him; but
PERFORMANCE OF AG REE.MENTS.
331
Vendee acquiesces
de-
the
if
in
the
lay, or
an Agreement, or
perform
it,
mance
but
1
;
if
insist
on a specific perfor-
he has performed so
if
part of
bis
it
he cannot
to perform
much
of his
and
the residue
u
,
is
in
no default
or
is
prevented
for not
from compleating
it,
performing
v
,
he
is
intitled
to a specific performance.
There
considered as entire,
parties
fail
and
at
the
either of the
Agreement,
instance of such
if
Agreements
performance of the
in
cannot,
it
left
Party, be
to an action
other-
it is
yet
part,
performance.
the
fail
in
Children
If the
Hus-
the performance of
may
compel
Mother's Father,
for in-
stance,
Pinrke
against
Curtns,
Feversik.m
v.
Watson, Ch.
and
u
Meredith and Wynn, 2
Ch. Cas. 18, 19. "S. C. Pre.
Ch. 312. Gilb. ftep. 70. Lex
Pretoria 240,241.
' Blackwell
v. Nash, 1 Str.
035.
EQUITY JURISDICTION
332
for
pediment
to
the Children's
receiving
on the
if
do
in that
the
full
there be failure
same
case would be to
all
it is
the
Jay hold on such Estate, as he should claim, towards making good his portion of the Settlement
considered as Purchasers,
and
the Settlement,
a failure
If a
on one side
Man
Uses under
w
.
a Contract for a
had a
Court
Lord
who had
Wife
enforce a specific
performance of
articles for a
"So
said in
Willingham
v.
Hill v.
Barclay, 18 Ves,
63.
z
See what is said in Buchanan v. Buchanan, 1 Ball
and Beattv 206.
Mh.
203.
333
b
previously done , that such articles might, under
all
Agree-
it
by*
both
at
Law
and
in
valent to performance'.
weighty objection
Agreement
It
to a specific
a Lease'
for
is
performance of an
fically to
to the
f
;
a Decision
is
mity with
his opinion
45a
03S.
*
Hedges,
and
k
.
P.
95;
in confor-
Scb. and
efr.
130.
See Weatheratl
v. (Jeering,
12Ves.51&
f
Brooke
v.
Hewitt, 3 Acs.
'253.
s
Weatherall v. Geering,
12 Ves. 514.
h
See Moyses v. Little,
2 Vern. 19 1.
See Willingham v. Joyce,
It;-.
3 Ves.
Buckland v.
Hall, 8 Yes. 75.
k
Franklin v. Lord Brownlow, 14 Ves. 550
'
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
33t
mance
a Corn-
perfc-
performance of an Agreement
specific
is
As where
commu-
who
Evidence"
On the same ground the Court has refused tt>
enforce an Agreement by an Officer in the Army,
1
for an
Assignment of
or an Agree*
to be
enforceable.
Where
therefore
it
11
The
mutual.
and Gray T
case of Hatton
shew
to
is
that
it
is
sufficient
is
often cited
that the
Agreement
performance
is
whom
the
12.
"
Stone v.
Anstr. 533.
Mithwold
Ves. 238.
Lidderdale,
v.
Walbank, 2
Hawkins
v.
Holmes,
1 P,
Wins. 770.
See diet,
in
Shannon
v.
Ah>. 21.
333
such
servations
on
a construction
Frauds, for
it
own
it
depend on
it
his
on
will
."
much
Gray, so
v.
relied
but
in the
in the short
Report
in
Chancery Cases',)
to have
on his
own
it,
a sign-
to close the
The
is
against
A.
all
due deference,
as
it
was
justly considered,
It
is,
not,
to Suppose, a
as
therefore, "when
ami
Lawrence
Left".
v.
Butler, 1 Sch.
"20.
y
2 Ch, ('as.
Pretoria, Ms,
>
\{\\
at;d
Lex
Frauds, p.
of Vend,
ami Purch. 04. Ut Edit,
1
">">.
124, Sugdeii's
v,
Dan-
the Party
Law
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
33(5
who
not be decreed
it will
The
has been
been
more than
able
that
a
,
under the
is
it
for a
b
very clear
already considered
is
effect of
tracts
it
where a Sale
has"
or extremely unreason-
Agreement,
to the
becomes
it
a beneficial bar-
decreed
formance
subsequent
accidental
same
to a specific per-
be enjoyed according
to the
it
cannot
stipulations of the
is
Agreement,
will not
Hall
v.
770.
v. Carril, 1
I Eq. Abr.
Holmes, 1 P.
Contra. Lowther
Butler,
Hawkins
Wms.
v.
Veni. 221.
Newman,
v.
mentioned
Newlaud on Contracts,
in
p. 06.
S. C. 10 Ves. 300.
b
re-
If there
20.
ad-
Barnardiston
v.
Ling-
make
a Jointure, arti-
mond,2 Vern.
423. S. C. Prec,
Ch. 150; and seeCass v. Ruddie, 2 Vern. 280. but see cases
on a contrary principle, Ch.
Ca. 19. Awbry and King, 2
Vern. 472.
d
e
Anon. MS.
cled,
Marriage,
oi*
brought a
Bill for
make
to
what Lauds,
33|
or lo
Execu-
missed
Man
where a
So,
Marriage, promises by
in consideration
pay
letter, to
Execution
Many
8
.
Agreement
h
.
will, if
it
Agreement, by reducing
a specific
it 'into
Daughter
any certainty,
to
it
his
of
is
to
to a certainty';
it
mance,
in a reasonable
An Agreement
be enforced
and
';
k
.
the
to be ascertained
are
time
Terms
of an iVgreement
ascertained, a
Court of Equity
Agreement,
any thing
if
may
is
done
to be
but
in specie;
if
there
is
not specifically
perform the
Agreement,
k
Southwell v. Abdev, Hil.
6 Ceo. 2. 1732. MS. "contra
2 Cli. Rep. \J.
Emery v. W;ise, 5 Yes.
'
11
v. Gery, 14 Yes.
407.
m As to this see Hall v.
VOL.
I.
846. Milnes
EQUITY JURISDICTION-.
33S
';
Award
refused
The
to be enforced,
ly defined
many
parties,
agreed upon.
instance, a
If, for
Man
covenants to
sell a
Fee-
no more,
this
It
is
well settled
for a valuable
consideration.
Person agreeing to
must covenant
that he
convey,
Estate
is
in fee;
free
sell
is
an Estate
seized,
for quiet
enjoyment
from Incumbrances;
assurance: and
if
the
in fee-simple
and
that the
for further
Vendor purchased
the
Blundell
v.
Brettargli,
17
this point
and
see
Norton
v.
is
own
acts only.
It"
333
Ven-
And
if
it is
Acts
his
to
the
reasonable
but
reduced
in
if
in-
Money
termediate Heir,
is
'.
that
for himself,
no need of
is
a cove-
Where
an Estate
is
own Acts
r
;
but
is
if
Law
or Devisee,
the Heir has been directed to covenant that neither he, nor the immediate ancestor under
he claims; and
whom
in
incumber'.
*Vid. Church and Brown,
15 Ves. 263. in note by Mr.
Vesey. Loyd v. Griffith,3 Atk.
and
267. 2 Bos. and Pull. 22
**>e Sugd. Vend, and Purch.
;
etc.
and
Loyd
v. Griffith,
2; 7.
'lb. 2(8^
14 Ves. 239.
3 Atk.
EQUITY JURISDICTION".
340
Where
there
a Lease,
more, this
nants
is
Agreement for
number of years, and no
simply an
for a certain
entitles a Party to
'.
word
clear
',
is
seems now
u
.
fully established,
v
,
that an
Agreement
for a
the usual
He who
bound
to give a
Covenant of Indemnity
is
to the
Church
no
distinction
is
v.
Browne,
15
Ves. 258.
"Lord Tyrconnelv.
v. Slaughter, 1
Esp. N. P.
8.
Duke of
Boardman,
Ves. 471.
v.
Mostyn, 6
by the
Of all
and by an Assignee of
original Lessee,
A Purchaser
Title
'',
341
is
most frequently
is
Title,
commencing
at
upon
hast
and sometimes
a longer period,
for
where there
a
.
he usually
refers
such doubts
for the
opinion of
decisions on objections
made
to Titles,
but the
questions of Law,
\\*ork.
is
Interest
of the
Stains v. Morris,
IS Yes.
Beard,
cruated,
Cooper
v.
Denne, 4 Bro.
C. C. M>. S. C. 1 Yes.
Jun.
565.
c
13.
b
shall there-
If there be a
real
to
we
Dick.
and
392.
there
Marlow and
Wnra. 198. and
als.o
Smith, 2 P.
v. Wright, 3 Yes. 22.
Shaw
*
&c.
p.'25'J,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
342
entitled if he chooses
to abide
is, it
by the Purchaser,
chase Money', by
way
seems,
it
refuse
is
in value,
is
h
:
Pur-
his
;
nor
if
the
of compensation*
seems,
and
unable to ascer-
veyed
to him,
circumstances
the
all
at
is
true, generally,
a Purchaser
may,
if
that
',
insist
it
which he contracts
Hill v.
Buckley, 17 Ves.
Ves.
'
Paton
and Bea.
Milligan
I
Seaman
v.
16
what said in
Vawdry, 16 Ves.
and. see
v.
Cooke,
is
and
Grant,
h
Mortlocke v. Buller, 10
Ves. 316. but see the case as
to an agreement to assign a
lease, mentioned 1 Fpnbl. 212.
and what is said 1 Ves. and
Bea. 225.
,)
insist
a compensation.
401.
If,
buy a Freehold
v.
Rogers, 1 Ves,
p. 353.
lb.
that
is
Copyhold
If a contract be for a
,n
.
one
to accept
be compelled
Estate, he cannot
343
House
ducement
it
Purchaser
to the purchase, a
so, if
Land be represented
is
will not,
House only
And
in-
with
as Freehold,
found
to
be Lease-
Lessee,
who
Term,
brances, but
who
".
fifty
from Incum-
free
in fact
it
a specific performance
shewn
to be
sold,
Estate as containing
" be
the
by estimation,
same more or
Where
Bill
mance of
contract
less'
is filed
for the
many acres,
specific
perfor-
purchase of Real
for the
8G8.
so
.'*
Winch
1 Ves.
v.
Winchester,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
344
if
to the Master,
made
to
stract of
was delivered
the
Title
unless the
upon the
abstract", as
to the abstract
abstract being
by taking possession
s
.
shewn
to a Purchaser, previous to
which the
of Title appears,
defect
Though
e
.
any objection
to the Title as
may
to be, that
pelled
to
it
appears in
on a reference
Misist
produce
all
power
his custody or
by the ordinary
in
not
Decree,
does
is
com-,
to the Title
may
fallen
be furnished,
wrung from
means acquire
may be
by which the
directed,
way,
gifted in a
Jenkins
v.
'Fleetwood
v.
Hiles,
in
which
6 Ves.
Green, 15 Ves,
it
Title
may be
Vendor thought
whom a specific
T
.
performance
Fight
his
345
to
is
prayed,
may by
and
a reference,
upon
his
answer waive
upon the
call
Court
to decide
but
in
And
this
Title,
are
would be an
it
seems
if it
course
idle
Master
x
.
it
said,"
;"
always
sonable and
and will
fair,
establish
it
as a
Many
cases
6 Ves. G53.
Jenkins v. Hiles,
Ves.
C53, (555.
x
See Omerod v. Hardmaq,
5 Ves. 731.
7
Sedgewick
? Ves. 57
v
v.
Hargrave,
P.
428.
See
1 Ves.
Piscoe
and Bea.
v.
Perkins,
192, 3.
EQUltY JURISDICTION*
34fr
mentof
if
there
is
is,
that a
a considerable,
much
own
credit to its
opinion, as to compel a
Law
and
this,
as to
Seller
is
Nor will
upon
possessed, or
arises
legal* objection.
Court of Law,
r
be directed, without the Purchaser's consent and
;
d
,
but may-
And where
circumstances, in which
of legitimacy from
might be
attended
with so
much
it
reasonable
it,
f
.
for
Stapylton
it
v. Scott,
is
16 Ves.
Wheateand
I
Uoake
v.
Sheffield v.Lord
Mulgrave,
See Lord
Braybroke
v.
PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENTS.
SPECIFIC
of a good Title
Hi*?
certainty
1
.
entails,
left,
Estate
no objection,
Crown,
Crown
if
that there
reservation
restrain
though,
has
it
come upon
another
is
for there is
only a bare
has
de-
his
Soil
and
Soil from
them themselves,
work them c
or grant
Where
the Title
is
clear,
course
is,
the Title
that
the
Master reports
and a Reference
approve a Conveyance
arises,
whether
all
made
is
in
favor of
to him,
all
Weaton, 3 Atk.
lb,
if it
made
Parties
d
,
Hj.
J20.
*
v.
Con-
to
r*
equity jurisdiction:
348
otherwise,
Costs'
would be
the Bill
An
with
dismissed
Title,
on the
is
a question of Conveyance,
is
not of Title*.
It
sell a
is
bound
to
make out
f
but the prevailthat the Lessor has a good Title
;
it,
is
or in
Particulars of Sale,
Title.
they meant to
sell
it
shall
selling, is
When
make
Conveyances
are directed,
11
by a Decree,
men
of
direct',
*
See Loyde
Atk. 267.
e
Berkley
v.
Griffith,
v.
v.
Daugh,
10
dofftrine in
Pope
S. P.
ruling the
Ex
Ves. 380.
also
White v. Foljambe, 11
Ves. 345. and see Macdonald
and Hanson, 12 Ves. 277, over-
17.
'
267,
Loyd
v.
Griffith,
3 Atk.
Vendor should
Sale, for
14
cases always
to inquire
is
suf-
is
in these
make
Report of a defective
ble of being
dor getting
upon
Master's Report
the Master's
same
Title, if the
where the
as
it
if
if)
is
ficient
,'j
is
capa-
a reasonable time
that the
is,
Ven-
that speedi-
ly.
The Court
will not
distance of years,
he
is
ready to
come
to
make
to the
good
specific performance.
description,
Title,
call
Cases, however,
must be governed by
for a
of this
circumstan-
ces".
When, on
that a
the
good Title
Vendee may
to
file
Langford r. Pitt, 2 P.
630. Mortlocke v. Builer,
10 Ves. 315
und see
Jenkins v. Biles, 6 Ves. G54.
Wynn and Morgan, 7 Ves,
Wms.
205, 6.
'
Langford v.
Vendor
Pitt,
to
2 P.Wms.
630.
m Coffin
and Cooper,
14
Ves. 205.
n
Wvnn
v.
Morgan, 7 Vts
v. Hiles. 6 Vw
205,0. Jenkins
640.
EQUITV JURISDICTION *
-
3.50
but
it
seems,
per-
Master with
view
to
damages
that being
power
his
out of
if not
his
more
In Denton
it is
p.
it
in
is
not,"
of the Court*."
may be
It
this fruitful
if
the Pur-
tate
as he
s
.
In general,
if
a Purchaser
is let
into possession
may
1
;
but
it
395.
Gwillim
v.
Stone, 14 Ves.
128.
tione.
not
be a case where he
is
universally so
shall
u
:
17 Ves. 276.
Davy v. Barber, 2 Atk.
490.
l
Flndyer v. Cocker,
S
12 Ves. 25. Blount v. Blount,
3 Atk. 037.
u
See Blount v. Blount, 3
s
Atk.6J7.
terest,
Profits
351
as
where there
and afterwards
Vendee
the
will be
Rents and
is
and the
Profits,
chase-money
Title
circumstance,
that
notice of
has
only,
Pur-
to the
And
interest".
upon
he
Money,
for his
where
made
without
he cannot,
good,
express
Where
the
ficulties, in
Purchase-money
Contract,
paying
at least,
7
.
able,
it is
Cent.
The
is
old
pay-
Rule
decision,
Money
Estate, in whatever
u
manner
ell v.
v
Blount
v.
Child
v.
an
payment
note.
Blount, 3 Atk.
C37.
x
laid out,
is
Lord Abingdon,
v. Roe-
EQUITY JURISDICTION,
352
much
for so
presumed
to
on both a
under
If laid out
be binding
will
it
If a Vendee,
who
must be
it
Vendor,
to the
this will
all
but
fall
Ven-
b
*
Where
as he
is,
is
not
Money,
where there
is
a Schedule, or particulariz-
f
.
If
more Land
sold than
is
is
sufficient
chaser
s.
But though
Roberts
v.
Massey,
13
Ves. 561.
c See
Co. Lit. 290. b.
d
Ves. 654. in n.
lthell v. Beane, 1 Ves. 21 5,
Dunch
v.
Spalding
to see to the
v.
301. Hardwicke v.
Anstr. 109.
f
Mynd,
Ambl.
1 Ves. 173.
Spalding
Vein. U0L
v.
Shalrnert
TRUSTS.
application of the
menced,
it
plication h
seems,
And where
Lands
Act of Parliament,
Trustees, by
Mortgagee
353
is
it
Money
the
to see
arc
vested
in
mortgaged
to be
incumbent on the
applied according-
iy-
the Court,
Mode
is
in
Money
k
.
TRUSTS.
VI.
We now proceed
a species
and of
all
well
ascertainedV' and
more reduced
to
may
Trusts,
have
by
certainty,
since
still
him.
be created of Real, or
been
the decisions of
Personal
2.
Im-
may
11
Walker
Ambl. 077.
v.
Cot'erel
'
v.
Smallwood,
Hampson,
Vera. 6.
k
103.
Express,
v.
Lloyd
1.
v.
12 Ves.
Jones, 9 Ves.
Price,
or,
Curtis
VOL.
1.
T. R. 759. in N
Letter to Lord Kaims, Life
of Kaims, I Vol.243.
b
A A
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
354
be included,
or
such Trusts
all
Express Trusts,
by Deed,
and
resulting- Trusts,
by Will
are^
Implied Trusts
created
arise, in
situation of Parties.
consideration,
is
entitled
Trustee
is
Trust and
and,
between the
as
Trustee,
his
(unless the
The
f
.
that
Law
re-
6
,
as
definition of an
,
may
still
be ap-
Statute, but
to Trusts'
which had
quence of it.
It
was defined
reposed in another,
their
and in conse-
to be, a
confidence
of the
3P. Wms.
222.
it
suf-
Bacon on Uses,
Use of the Law, 153.
last Edition,
19.
f
s.
1.
in proremco.
27 Hen.
Sparrow
Atk. 798.
B
8.
v.
c.
10.
Hardcastle, 3
trusts.
him
for
to take the
355
Where, therefore, a
A. and his Heirs, to the
13. and
his Heirs, A. the
Profits'.
for)
fits,
to
be entitled
more
and Forfeitures
especially,
to the
All the
Use
executed
is
to the use,
pleat
i.
e.
as in
of the
ill
by which
Statute, the
the possession
is
is
conveyed
made com-
Equity.
The Equitable
all
conse-
the preamble
in
Owner
Law
at
many
in
by avoiding wardships
Crown
the pro-
to
in
well
as
Estate in the
were remedied.
before
>
Feoffment
only the
first
use,
his
to
A.
Heirs, in
'
were
Estates,
Tri-
trust for
whose
1G0. S. C.
Barn. 384.
m 27 Hen.
30 Hen.
Dy. 1>5. A.
n
A A 2
mere
3 P. Wins. 34l.
8. c. 10.
8.
TyreU'* Case,
EQUITY JURISDICTIONS
356
nullity.
They were
They adhered,
as
of the
Statute,
not, perhaps,
blameable
in this.
bound
And though by
their
rigo-
is
kgns,
somewhat peevishly
insists
as
but must be
The Judges
of others,
men-
it
if
Common
Lands
La\v
They
left it as at
purposes'.
Lands remain
Where,
in
them
is
to
and pay
not execut-
answer those
therefore, there
Enquiry
into the Jurisdiction of the Court of Chan-
where
is
Convey.
r
36 Hen. 8. Bro. Feoff, al.
Uses, 52. 2 Bl ck. Com. 33(3.
Har. Co.
Litt. 290/
n. 1.
s. 2. Treatise of Equity, Book
2.
Ch.
1. s. 4.
3j7
TRUSTS.
ance to Trustees
Trust
in
to conveif,
or to
sell
or
to
in all cases,
to a
it
seems
make
as
is
in
as to
pay Annuities*, or to
maintenance of
add
that position
to
than to
The
but
Sta-
professed to
name
the
effect
a Conveyance*"
remedy
that the
swered
all
Henry
was intended
the 8th
this
Work
to treat
it
is
intents
and purpo-
on them more
s
Bac. Uses, 8. Roberts and
Diwvell, 1 Atk. 007.
Bagshaw v. Spencer, 2 Atk.
578. Wright v. Pearson, Ambl.
300.
1
all
to avoid.
design of
at length.
The
Wilson, 2 T. R. 444.
Shapland and Smith, 1 Bro. 75.
x
Hopkins v. Hopkins, 1
Atk. 591. BlackstoDe, 2 Com.
terv.
port.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
33S
Law
of
nor
is it
Uses
such
as those
lease,
and Re'
as a Feoffment, Lease
tation of Possession,
and
and Shifting
nor on
Uses, or
powers, so
as
2
,
powers over
as legal
as such,
tion of a
with a
S(
b
,)
power
original or exclusive
These matters,
it
is
of Equity any
to decide
upon them.
in
Courts
o)
them
is
indispensable
Law
but
coupled
before ob-
Common Law
See Sutton
Yes. 538.
is
v.
Jones,
15
it
is
to
the
Common Law
a
Common
Reports,
the
rounds them,
TKUSTS.
must be had,
that reference
359
most authori-
for the
on these subjects.
tative decisions
no
to
Equity
any purpose
for
may, however, be
It
Common Law
their decisions
way
it
Estates,
in
by
is
by Conveyances
to Trusts,
at
Common
Common' Law
which, Courts
peculiar,
and
Law*.
takes
it
called,
is
no notice,
of Equity
to that
of which
and over
have an original^ a
exclusive, Jurisdiction.
it
existed before
Trust
is
in
other
words
a right in
in
Equity
6
,
and
Law
will lie
is
such a
Action at
of Estates,
into another,
dale,
d
in note.
'
f
Mod.
Sturt
C12.
all
Fund
power of in-
17.
r. Mellish,
2 Atk,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
360
satisfied
que Trust,
until
real or
Law
have
laid
down,
and
11
whether the
this,
Deed
mon
to both
Courts
is
k
it is
an absolute
Will,
Whether
''.
or a Will, pass
or a limited Interest,
and
created by
is
Deed
or
Law
in
is
guided by
head
Marriage ,already
of Mistake', and in
which
The
most
respects, the
as
owners of
v. Ball, 1
v.
'
Wms.
k
25JJ.
See
Duke
of
Norfolk's
TRUSTS.
Estate
possessed
Estates are
legal
#51
same manner
is
except
a legal Estate,
He may alien
it
and any
respect of
in
legal
Trust
as
Dower
conveyance or
as-
as
the
Estate
Icaral
The
it
is
same
the
if
Common
Law
as at
with
of such a nature,
upon
effect of a Fine
been barred
at law,
it
would have
Recovery suffered by
Praecipe
To
all
p
,
but
it
must be
there
a legal
Common
Tenant
to the
Recovery,
Prsecipe
efficient, if there
q
;
be
or
if
legal remainder in
Recovery
table
Tenant
It
6
;
seems, an Equi-
as to this post.
Champernon,
v.
ShorraU, 1 Atk.
476. and see 1 Vera. 440.
p North v. Way, 1 Win.
13.
and steBurnaby
y. Griffith,
76,7.
q
it
North
but,
is
m See
is
tail
Robinson
v.
dimming,
v. Thornton, Ambl.
Selwin
545, 099. and 1 Bro. C. C. 73.
in note. Boteler'v.
1 Bro.
AUingham,
C. C. 72.
North v. Champernon, 2
Ch. Ca. 03.78.
* Shapland v. Smith,
1 Bro.
C. C. 71. Robinson v. Cumuaing, 1 Atk. 473.
l
See this point discussed.
SugdenVcnd. and Parch. 287.
r
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
36%
disseisin, so as
to prevent an equitable
Tenant
in
was holden
in several cases,
1
,
that the
Tenant
might by bare
arti-
cannot by Will or
Estate
x
.
Upon
its
Lord Hardwicke
Entail,
never will
z
:
By
his Treason
It is subject to
a
,
it
or Felony
is
Title should,
a
lord Granville v, Blyth,
16 Ves.224.
T
Bates v. Bayley, 2 Vern.
226.
w Otway
v. Hudspn, 2 Vern.
Woolnough
v.
Wool-
1 Vern. 14.
Kirkham v. Smith,
Ambl. 518.
Ve.
Trust
be a Trust of
upon
it is
barred*.
same manner
Greenhill
d
e
in the
v.
Greenhill,
2 Vern. 680.
a
See 33 Hen. 8. c. 20.
b
Hob. 214. Hard. 490.
c
it.
in execution
not acted
260. S. C.
hope
he forfeits
it
may be taken
the
devise
an Extent", (unless
583.
y ."
s.
2.
Hard. 405.
See29 Ch. 2. c. 3. s. 10.
Medlicot v. O'Donel, 1 Ball
TRUSTS.
3G3
there
may
by the
as
Common Law,
The Power of
there
Trust
was of an Usc
g
,
h
.
He
benefit
of the
of a Mortgage)
to
a purchaser, for a
would have
a different effect
;)
is in
',
and
it
ture,
'
Corbet's Case,
Pye v. George,
128. Saunders v.
Vein. 271. Daniels
SS\
Re|>.
P. Wins.
Dehew, 2
v.
Davison,
16 Ves. 249.
k
Finch v. Earl of Winchelsea, 1
Wins. 278. Bennett
is
bound by
the
'
Uses. 279.
"'
157.
dishorn
v.
luglia.
7 Yin.
EQUITY JURISDICTION
3(34
Trust
n
;
video* that,
, it is
pro-
to the
had been,
but
it
mine,
it
in
Trustee
may devise
Trust
may
is
it
will be
In
Comyn's Digest,
Forfeiture, B.
1.
it is
Tit:
said the
v.
Bearcroft,
r
See Lord Bray broke v
lnskipp, 8 Ves. 4:J5. Reade
v. Reade, 118. 8 T. R. winch
Attorney
cases
overrule
General v.
Buller, 5 Ves.
339. and what is said 1 Bro
v.
England,
C. C. 198.
TRUSTS.
tlier
by Conveyance
tains
the absolute
Estate, though he
or otherwise,
Ownership
acquired
Law
at
of the
by an equitable
that
Title,
Person oh.
or are after-
to. ether
may
also
bequeathed
pointed, the
considers
the
is
Court of Equity9 .
be remarked, that where Property
in
but no Trustee
Trust,
Court
ap-
is
in
Heir at
in a
Law
Trustee
as a
and
Where
an Estate,
for
itself,
a
.
instance,
is
devised in
by
tach
Heir
at
Law becomes
Will\
Having made
a Trustee
but
at-
and the
raises,
to the
Uses of
the
upon
to con-
sider,
1.
necessities of
Mankind
created by
Deed
nor
is it
Souley
c.C. 81,
v.
Master.
Bro,
EQUITY JURISDICTION
3(5(5
merate
all
are of th
or personal Property
chasers
3. In
2.
In Conveyances to Pur-
4.
In
real
or
Settlements
may
personal Property,
rules
be made either of
or both
and subject
to the
by
may be made
according to
Personal
Settlers.
Estate may,
be rendered
a careful Settlement,
the
unalien-
Chattels,
may be
cumulation to go on during
that period of time-, during
^hich the Law permits the
in
by
and
tee
Lengdon
v,
TRL^TS.
Tail
307
d
,
transmissible
after, or
case of a
in the
If the
of Personalty
Limitations
being ,
in
executory
as
on
are
in
first
taker
and whatever
(
Land,
in
words would
will give the
K
,
because no
this
cases,
doctrine,
common
is
1
'
seems,
it
is
raised,
import of the
by an ingenious
construction of a Will,
intention \
may
of Inheritance
and such
Remainders
d
over,
n. 7.
20\
Lit.
as
may
by
IS 6 .
n. 5.
S.C.MS.Doileyv.Sparrat,MS.
and see Cambridge v. Rous,
8 V.s. '24. and 12 Ves. 218.
f
Jacobs v. Amyatt, 4 Bro.
C. C. 5 13.
s
be devised or limited
have Interests
in the
alienation of
2J.
430. Daw
Chatham, 7 Bro. P.
Atk.
Toml.
Edit.
all
the Estate
v.
v.
Ivie,
Lord
C. 453.
Butterfield
v.
Fordyce
539.
Chandless
480. in note.
v.
Ford, 2 Ves.
v.
Price, 13 Ves.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
36S
pur autre
vie
nor
is
An
When
t<
security,
it;
granted in fee
of course
life
may
it
but
may be
as a qualified or
conditional fee,
solute in the
it
granted
descendible
it is
personal only
is
or
become ab-
it
can-
Pemainder of
of Property
there can be no
for
it,
which
Remainder
is
DonisK
Where
Leasehold Estate
by
either
words
Deed
real
Estate
The
till
it
that
viz.
in Tail;
to
or
if
is,
till
it
it
to
until a
JJro
Reco-
Law
n
.
nor
is it
found
shall
be enjoyed
is,
general
go farther
a Recovery
forms of Settlement
in
it,
real
go
of doing
directs that
with the
will
mode
special Limitations'
Law
intended to be set-
11
is
Harg. Co.
Litt. 20.
n. 5.
C C
324,5.
to.
As
in
Felhamv. Gregory,
5 Bro. C. U. 435.
n
Watkins v. Lea, 6 Yes.
041.
TRUST8.
209
Settlement by
strict
Trust
to
real
Estate
in
intended Husband, a
the
is
case she
in
which
Husband
to charge a Jointure, a
sum
Funds
of
Money
name of
the
in
is,
Any
provision,
or precarious
it
it
may
be,
amount
to a
of Dower,
lieu
in
q
;
but
it
has
Dower
or her
ment
but
r
;
if
thirds,
as if there
As
bar
herself of her
4v.>.
54.
5-2-3.
Carruthevs
v.
will
Bro.
C.
customary
C. 500.
Smith
Canuthcrs,
KB
Arclicr v. IV
Archer
527.
I.
it
by ngreement or composition
Earl of Buckinghamshire
and Ihurv, 5 Bro. l\ C. 570.
Chitty v Chttty, a Ves. 540.
p Walker v. Walker,
1 Ves.
VOL.
Settlement,
".
Woman may
before Marriage,
Setiic-
be binding
were no
v.
p.j,
Pope,
v.
Atk.
2 Ves.
2 Ves.
EQUITY J *TIBlCX10jr<
^70
Share
where
he
thirds":
or her
considered,
leaving no Wife
regard to the
is
phanage Share of
custom, as
w
.
Husband covenant
the
if
in
and
ruie, that
is
it
is
so
his
intended Wife,
ope-
this
rates as an
And
if a
upon
his intend-
mentioning
to be in bar of her
it
customary
this
made by a Freeman on
Jointure
his Wife,
y
;
part];
but a
and ex-
Where
fore
tion
a Provision
for a
*.
in full satisfac-
right
by com-
Law
or
and,
butions**;
it
seems,
1 P.
10 Mod. 451.
Readv. Shelf, 2 Atk. 644.
u
Glover v. Bates, I Atk.
1
Bliinden
Wins. 633.
v.
it
Barker,
S. C.
2 Atk. 644
and
see Love
Drnce
v.
Atk.
Lewiu
'
v.
Lewin, 3 P.
Wms.
15.
2
Vein. 6.
Dennison, 6 Ves.
393. Morris v. Burroughs, 1
Atk. 403.
v.
Ives v. Medcalfe, 1
64.
439.
v
Babbington
v.
Greenwood,
505.
Vein. 15.
stj,
371
of London
Provisions
expressed to
quently to an implied
Covenant
stance, by
in
J
l
Marriage
in-
lor
;ent,
Dower
bar.
leave, or to
pay
to
Sum
death a
at his
Money
of
a Person,
to
meht,
whether Payment
ing, or
or six
Months d
It has
where
own
is
been generally
laid
Husband makes
and pay-
down
that in
all
a Settlement
cases
of
his
Agreement
purpose,
for that
as
tors';
but
later cases
Husband does
Read
v.
v,
Snell,
to
go
to
considered
his
Execu-
Benson
seem
will
is
par-
that
2 Atk. C42.
Bellasis, 1
Vein. 15.
c
Vid. Garthshore t. Chalie,
10 Ves. 20.
Mb. 10 Ves. 13. but see
Kirk man v. Kirkinan, 2 Bro.
may
afterwards
come
e
Cleland v Clehmd, Pre.
Ch. 60. Blois v. Martin, 2 Vern.
Wvndham,
501. Packer v.
Pre. Ch. 412. a:jd see no;e
D. to a P. Wins. 199.
C. C. 95.
KB
EQUITY
372
to his
Wife,
to be
ports
if
J.C11JSDICTX0N.
f
,
specified
but
survive to her 5 ;
if
the Settlement
to
titled
the contents of
or
is,
much
or
con-
in
is
may
en-
he
Settlement
the
as
if it
Where
there
it.
is
or particular
may
of
dispose
by
may do
it
by
either,
she
Estate,
or
by
though nothing
manner of disposing of
said of the
is
it
personal
It is dif-
it.
Law, and that more or less benethe Husband may be Tenant for
to her heir at
ficially
Life
for
if
otherwise not
but
her Heir
real Fstate,
at
Law
and prevent
but that,
it
its
fine,
going
seems, can
way
over an Use.
instance, suppose a
f
Carr
57.
v.
Salwiy
In the
Taylor,
first
10 Ves.
Salwey,
of Trust, or power
Wo-
ley,
against
still
A Woman,
it
95,0.
TRUSTS.
man having
378
a real
veyance,
Marriage,
(if after
conveys that
to
fault of
for
proper Con-
must be by Fine)
in
trust
for
herself
and
Trust
shall be in
for
such Person,
as she shall
seal, or in
it
it
Trustees,
by
and
appointment, to her
good declaration
Law would
de-
lieirs,
will be a
in
be reme-
diless'.
For though,
in the
k
,
notion of the
Law,
Wife
yet,
ministration
to the
Whoever
in
the
But notwithstanding
is
Deed
that,
Peucocke
Wright
Monk,' 2 Ves.
against Englefield, Ambl.
4ns. Wright v.
Cadogani 6 Iko. P. C. 150.
1
v.
100.
the
as if the
been contained
ing
or
has
the
effect
and
ICO.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
374
The words
are to
First,
-.
if
it
by virtue
of,
Thirdly, If they
take
can
only
do not take
as
So, the
way of power
over an
Use
as if she
Estate
to
the
of appointment, to her
power reserved
the same
But, a
to
own
her,
conveyed
Life,
re-
as she
by
in
and
she
is
may execute
Feme
Covert, cannot,
it
default
" Sup-
Woman
hav-
ing a real Estate before Marriage, in consideration of that Marriage, enters into an
Agreement
with her Husband, that she may by writing under her hand, executed in the presence of Witnesses, or
by
.will,
n
Southby v. Stonehouse,
2Ves.6lO.
See 2 Ves. 191. and see
Travel v. Travel, 3 Atk. 711.
Tomlinson v. Deighton, IP.
Wms.
Ambl. 468.
149.
TRUSTS.
this
ment, and
it'
Law
at
she does
'Al'j
It rests in
though
it,
may
it
under
tlie
at
own Agreement
Law- Still she
Coverture
disability of
ami
the Instrument
if
at
hind her
curte
but what
a
is
1-
cine,
the time of
The
invalid.
is
the
come
into
Court of Equity
Husband
and to join
into Execution,
Agreement
as the
-jive
after the
to carry this
her
v/ith
in a
and
is
to
is
such an
to be far-
Law
Tine
on such Trusts, or
if it
at
her
may
Convey-
ing
If a
Woman
Life, she
may
in
it
seems
.''
Equity
C. C. 10.
Law,
Law
seli that
Land
for
Interest*/'
2;-2.
Bui don
GO:
v.
EQUITY JURISDICTION'.
376
Feme
Covert,
it
may
to the sepa-
be an excu-
have been
Estate,
down
laid
otherwise
separate
may be
it
created,
by Settlement,
than
such
respecting
as well
Settle-
to
them
to
to obtain Property, in
right of a
Feme
Covert.
The Settlement which a Person clandestinely marrying an Infant Ward of Chancery, is compellable
make, has already been considered
to
By devise,
a married
woman may
z
.
acquire a sepa-
and the
he
legal Estate
be a Trustee
will be decreed to
Nor
in
the
first
Legacy
to
livelihood of the
make him
Husband
a Trustee
the
for
Wife"
a Trustee
sufficient discliarge to
make
receipt to
Ante, p. 280.
Bennett v.Davis, 2 P. Wms.
316.
Harvey v. Harvey, I P.
Wins. 124. S, C. % Vera. 059.
**
it
this
So, a
he
her d
and
present to
if an
the
Husband, "for
Wife
for the
to
by a
c
Davley v. Darley, 3 Atk.
390. but see the observations
on this ease, 3 Bro. C. C. 384.
d
Lee against Prieaux, 3 Bro.
C. C. 381.
TRUSTS.
377
it
r-
how-
In general,
seems, that to
Woman,
must appear
separate use
pay
trust, to
saying
shall be to her
and therefore
to
it
is
mere
without
not sufficient:
the
had
effect of
the
Wife
Interest in the
Personal
Gift
f
.
may be
made
to
Feme
up where
with
all
it
enjoyed
is
incidents'
its
Feme
It is a
Woman
that a married
separately, will
is
in
Graham
SAtk. 393.
Lamb
v.
v.
Londonderry,
Millies,
5 Ves.
517.
WngstafTandSmith.O Ves.
Hyde v. Price, 3 Ves.
437 and see More v. Huish,
5 Ves. 094.
5
524.
Rule, therefore,
to be considered
regard to
so,
as a
except, perhaps,
be
gifts or contracts,
Husband k and
;
as to
t)
kin:,,
EQUITY JURISDICTlOXo
3?S
who
is
Stock,
instance"
veyance
",
nor
tor
is
is it
the con-
expressly rendered
The Court
perty".
never
will
encourage the
be disposed of
and
8
,
i,
or
or enter
Agreement,
Note, Bond
into a
as if she
Court of Equity
r
,
Con-
w
,
and may
2 Ves.
193.
Norton
v.
2 Atk. 58,
2 P. Wins. 144.
l
Master v. Fuller, 1 Ves.
Jan. 513. S. C. 4 Bro. C. C.
in note to
s
19.
v
Bullpin
v.
Clarke, 17 Ves,
365.
w Masters v. Fuller, 4 Bro.
C. C. 19. S. C. I Ves. Jun.
513. 2 Atk. 380. Stamford v.
Marshall, 2 Atk. d9.
x
Fetti place against Georges,
3 Bro. C. C. 8. S. C. 1 Ves.
37
TRUSTS.
when
that
is
Bill,
continues
it
but
for
for
in default
Life,
thereof
established,
in
follow the
they cannot, by
to
may
Court
It
is
this
contingent In-
for that
filed
purpose,
1
.
observable that, in
all
Court
is
necessary
with an Equity \
nation in Court,
as
settled Property
judgment
of the
instrument
and proof in
is
testamentary
parting
exercise
by the Settlement
the
is
must be
where she
it is,
to the
instrument, Rich v. Cockell,
9 Ves. 376. or if in the execu-
than
The
is
reserved
contrary doc-
ings
277.
a
See Sturgis v. Corp, 13
Ves. 192; and see Eraser and
Baillie, 1 Bro. C. C. 518.
b
Richards
10 Ves. 585.
v.
Chamber*,
LQUITY JURISDICTION.
3S0
trine
ruled
in
1
.
of the Wife
in
Court
is
vention of the
the Court
makes
its
It is observable,
rate Estate
is
to
Decree.
be disposed of by the
Feme Co-
Feme Covert
can-
unless
it
Estate
So
far as
separate Estate
the
if
Proprietor,
so far
is
the
it
the separate
makes her
creating
is,
to
payment, an In-
If,
there-
fore, as in
ling
Hidiards
Chambers, 10
and see what is
same effect in Wool-
Ves.
583.
said
to
lands
178.
v.
v.
Crowcher,
* lord
Strange
Small, Ambl. 204.
12 Ves.
b
Jones and Harris, 9 Yes.
497. see also Essex v. Atkins,
14 Ves. 540.
c
Pybus v. Smith, 1 Ves. jun,
194.
d
;
against
lb. 193.
lb. 180.
TRUST 3.
perty by an Instrument in
cutes an Instrument
her separate Property
pay
to
vert,
the
money
and take a
into
381
Writing, and
site
exe-
in
the
Rcceijjt
from
her,
in Blich
case
it
during
it
to be paid to her
Husband
f
;
but
case has
this
only
confined
by Will
a disposition
to
Where
Feme Covert
granted an Annuity
owing
was held
it
By
marriage, the
property in
pable
oi'
all
Husband
acquires an absolute
Newman
tioned in
Wife ca-
v.
note
Cartony, menWillats v.
1.
is,
as to
if
such
h
Jones and Harris, 9
494. See also Williams
Duke of Bolton, 2 Ves.
Sterling and Rochford, 8
104. See also Suckett
Wrav, 4 Brc. 480.
Ves,
and
1:38.
Ves.
aod
3S2
her Property
is
Law or
possession by Action at
him
it
make
to
it
if he
Interest,
Suit in Equity*
into possession
Action,
it*
and
What
is
Wife
Equity,
in
of Law
As
at
Law
her, so
But
in the
need
Terms
as
gal Title
is
in
done by him
is
They
the wife.
but
will
legal
followed
in
Equity.
survive
may
he
Interest
in
le-
being in posses-
no act
some
there are
for years
same case
leif
assign
1
whe-
The Analogy
Equitable
Interests of
may be
same manner.
With
'
See Incledon
v.
Northcote,
3 Atk. 435:
k
Mitford
Law; consequently
may be taken
Execubut it does
riot survive. Wildrnan v. Wild*
man, 9 Ves. 177.
or
it
v.
Mitford, 9Ves.
at
transferred in the
in
TRUSTS.
383
their
In strict Analogy,
But
signment.
Equity*
in
and an Assignment
ment,
for
voluntary Assignment"
an Assignment
Where
a voluntary Assign-
for valuable
for a
Wife's equitable
Stock in Trust,
is
though she
had
Interest,
Dividends of
viz.
the
Bill of a
Sure-
to
if
bound by
valuable consideration,
for a
Husband
is
Considera-
valuable consideration
Husband
seems
distinction
made between
to have been
tion
amount, or
charge
The
it,
to
the decision
different
the effect
oi*
reducing into
Possession
Legacy
And
so,
married
Woman,
m Burnet
v.
as
Kcnnaston,
2 Vein 401.
12.
to
v.
Bates v. DaaoV,2Atk.207.
Lcml Carteret v. Paschal, 3 P.
Wins.
1!)7.
Wright
87.
v.
Morley, 11 VesJ
Franco, 4 V.
.-.
Fran-*
*)15.
11 Ves. 22.
Mitford
v.
MitfowT, 9
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
3S1
Possibility of the
the Property
asserted
is
legal right, he
with him
will
by Suit in Equity,
cannot reach
make him,
for
vested in Trustees,
in the Suit
1'.
except signing
a valuable consideration
perty
it,
as
where
who have
the
it
him '.
If, for
instance, a
Feme
Husband
files
without
his
Money
to the
Husband,
Wife;
for his
Husband and
the
In
all
demand
cases, indeed,
her
in
applies to the
own
Court
Wildman
v.
Husband
and the
no Agreement previous
an established
right,
in
Rule
the
to
Wildman,
s
Bates v. Dandy, 2 Atk.
207. Hawkins v. Obyn, 2 Atk.
549.
Nenny,
v.
[ See Langham
there
marriage
v
,
is
it is
(of
9 Ves. 174.
may
Mortgagor,
Bosville v.
Wms.
*
49.
v.
Col-
Brander, 2 P.
459,
See Brett
v. Percer,
3 Atk.
TliUSTS.
haps
that the
Husband
will not
J? 100
he allowed to
(unless
be
it
under
Husband
without making
Freeman of London
is
is
nor does an
ment
is
after marriage
is
not modern
is
early case,
to
adverted to
is
it
The Rule
but
consi-
The doc-
is
in a
b
.
Husband,
operation of
Law,
or otherwise; on the
it
Bank-
applies to
his Assignees.
as the
make
a proper Settlement
Brown
Wms.
3 Bro. C. C. 237.
Adams and Pierce,
3 P. Wms. 13. Sed quo. as to
this, swee the stat. 11 Geo. 1.
c. 18. which gives Freemen a
Power of bequeathing their
See
Personal Estates.
2
2 Atk. 448.
* 1 Dick.
391.
u
Tanfield
v.
Tothiir, p. 114.
VOL.
I.
the.
Settlement
c
Jaeobson v. Williams, 2 P.
Wins. 382. Exparte Colvgame, 1 Atk. 192. Grey v.
kentish, 1 Atk. 2S0. V
v. Marr, 2 Dick. 847. Mitford
v. Mitford, 9 Ves. 87. Wright
039.
the Wife'.
and Elton, 3 P.
Wins. 205. 2 P.
Davenport,
EQUITY JURISDICTION,
380
before marriage,
of part of her
Property to her
Rule,
it
e
.
Husband
and even
Husband 5 except,
of a Term for years,
Nottinghat)i
ex-
doubts \
The
point,
ment for
much
that
Lord
intimated
diffi-
questioned.
Thurlow
whether an Assignment
consideration
for a
valuable
but he
seen
it
exist in favor
Burdon
v.
difficult
Dean, 2 Ves
jun. 607.
1
Jewson
v.
Moulson, 2Atk.
reconcile with
v.
Moulson,
2 Atk. 420.
420.
v.
Phillips,
Macauley
4 Ves. 19. and see Wright and
R utter, 2 Ves. 711.
b
See Pitt v. Hunt, ] Vern.
*
18.
'4 Ves.
to
Sir
Edward
19;
See
trusts.
387
for that
there
was
perty,
it is
now
though
in favor of
Creditors
would
so as to
If the Father of
sumofalOOO
covenants to pay a
Husband,
to the
maybe
this
no part of
is
obtained without a
Settlements
Whenever
Husband
the
come
can
at
the
Term which
He may dis-
he has in right
which he has
Settlement
s
.
in
So
also,
if
a Trustee
real or personal,
who
Estate
to the
Husband,
teret v.
Like
606.
v.
Morley^ 11 Ves.
MS.
v.
Beresford,
or
before
if,
or hand over
real,
Wright
of the
17. S.C.
making a
Profits
Term
See
v. Hill,
v.
Act on
4 Bro. C. C.
Forcer, 3
Attorney
Atk.
General v.
3 Ves.
the personal
(an improper
p Prior
139.
q Brett
405.
and
c c 2
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
388
.
his part*,)
discretion
the
for
Husband,
it
Trustee
such
a Bill Jiled,
as
Bill
away
he had
may
seems,
cannot exercise a
previously
it
transfer
with
The
Bank Stock,
be-
it,
terfere to
The
has, in a
her
own
Court of Equity,
of such Courts.
The
Woman
out of
to a provision
Husband reduces
it
al-
to
whether any
41
Money
for the
;
Settlement has
is
then
She
is
not
and not
for her
Settlement
a
is
Children \
to be
made,
tolieu,
b
Wildman
t.
Wildman, 9
it
is
if
always directed
,l
Lady Elibank
5 Ves. 743,4.
Head, 3 Atk. 721.
lieu,
'
Murray
13 Ves.
6.
v.
Mont oMarch v.
v.
Lord Elibank,
TRUSTS.
She
'.
with
ascertained
waive
a Settlement
even
in favo>
of a
it in
even
a\
band,
here the
is
Wife
insufficient
lives
'.
It
substantive and independent right to claim a Settlement, out of the property of their Mother,
Settlement was
not
a right";
but
in a
to
a different doctrine
".
ed the Children
having aright
as
Sir
if
if
ffiorthi?igtoii
'';
may waive
'
Murray
v.
it
as to herself,
Lord Elibank,
Macau lay
18.
she
'
Macauluy
v.
Phillips,
Ves. 15.
13 Ves. 0,7.
Ves,
v.
Phillips,
7.
hank, 1'J
n
GroSVenor \. Lane, 2 Atk.
180, and see 2 \ ess. 072.
lleaile
v.
Greenback,
\i
.Atk. 717.
p Scriven
against Tapley,
Ainbl. 509. see also Cockel v.
These
Phips, 1 Dick. 891.
cases arc noticed by Sir Wilbam Grant, in Murray and
Lord Elibank, 13 Ves. 7.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
590
her Children
,)
So,
Proposal
after a
it
into execution
the Wife
may be
on a
Wife might,
In
esse,
all
Stock";
is c. ta...ed,
the
these cases
Husband
Income of
Bill
for, it
an Equity
the
to interpose
Wife 's
carried
it
no instance ofaDeltor
is
calling
for
There
is
where a Settlement
is
made,
considered as entitled to
the
his
the Court
w
,
or
is
rupt
z
,
makes
or
Murray
v.
Dick. 343.
604.
v.
Jackson,
2 Dick.
s
A non.
become
assignment
Bank-
for
the
in Saddington
Lord Elibank,
Rowe
or has
a general
2 Ves. 672.
Glaister v. Hewer, 8 Ves.
206.
Woollands v. Crowcher,
12 Ves. 174, overturning the
Argument of Mr. Madocks
and Kinsman,
Bro. C. C. 47.
v
Macaulay
v. Phillips, 4
See Bond T. Simmons, 3 Atk. 20.
w
See Like v. Beresford, 3
Ves. 506.
Ves.
15.
'Wiseman
Wms.
v.
Mason, IP.
459. in note.
Prior
v. Hill,
4 Ves. 138.
TRUSTS.
Husband who
If a
391
Part
wise
it
Portion
seems,
b
the small
if
make
refuses to
would be other-
(it
a Settlement
out of
And
is
money
of the
and
treatment;
Court
starving
Husband
d
,
in
Wife's
order
will
tak-
Affidavit of
to be
it
ill
paid into
a Provision
and
Husband goes
where the
any Provision
for her,
or
will
with
not interfere
her
Husband h
refuses to
live
there had
been a Divorce
for
adultery by the
Money
in
Oxenden
Bond
494.
Simmons, 3 Atk.
21.
d
Alexander v. M'Culloek,
cited in Ball and Montgomery,
2 Ves. jun. 191. and alluded
to in De Mannville and De
Mannville, 10 Ves. 56.
e
Allerton v. Knowel, mentioned 4 Ves. 7tt9. and see
set-
to
v.
the Wife
and where
if
;
he thinks
till
g.
v.
Wright
Oxenden, 2 Vern.
v.
Morley, 11 Ves.
12.
s
Watkyns
'
Atk. 97.
h
Bullock
798.
Carr v.
'
Ves. 14^-
v.
v.
Watkyns, 2
Menzies, 4Ve*.
Eastabrooke,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
302
ceeding
nance
Law
at
separate Use
recovering
Money
Sum
for her
be secured
Wife's
Money
is
for
in
satisfied
will be decreed
If a
for the
if
If an annual
but
pro-
assist her in
Pin
to
restrained from
Feme Covert
proceed
the Trustees
Term,
Money
has Pin
Money
at
lives
Law,
secured by a
in adultery,
to
and
recover the
but
if
her
left
quiesced in
terpose
1*.
To resume
by
Settlements,
of Trustees
to
we may next
These Trusts arose out of the doctrine in Childleigh's Case q , and in Archers Case
but they
r
Moore
v.
Moore,
Atk.
270.
Aston
v.
Aston,
Ves.
2C7.
p Sir R. More and Earl
of
Scarborough, 2 Eq. Abr, 150,
"
r
Co. 120.
ICo. 00.
TRUSTS.
not put in
practice
the time
till
case,
first
.Estate
remainder to
it
made
to
&e. Sons
his first,
tort in
A.
11
for life,
in tail,
him
ap-
which such
in
question
in
limited
is
which
first
tin
use of them.
Where an
of
to
though
do an\
contingent remainder*,
it",)
his
before
legal
is
power of doing
so,
trust,
nor conse-
may have no
nor handle
to the
matter being
left
purely
To prevent
y
.
this
disable the
to
in-
mere
would be
different
well as Trustee
s
if
x
,)
(it
58.
&8Q,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
394
voluntary Settlement, or
a breach
it is
and he
trust,
is
answerable to a
difference has
is
as in the latter
Where Trustees
to
new
eldest Son,
Life,
said, the
in
such cases,
special circumstances
cases, and
tion to a
Tenant
Mansel
6
;
but, generally, in
he shall so long
v.
078. S. C.
Mansel, 2 P.
MS. Symance
1 Atk. 014.
Mansell and Mansell, For.
253. S. C. MS. Moody v. Wal303,307. Pye
ters, 10 Ves.
v. Gorge, IP.Wms. 128. Biscoe
v. Perkins, 1 Ves. and Bea.
491.
lb. 129. Mansell and Mansell, 2 P. Wms. 080. and MS.
^Walter and Moody, 10 Ves.
v.
Tattam,
for that
has
it
d
:
pur-
for
to join
all
a term of years,
Wms.
Tenant
been
in Tail
other
limita-
Husband
live,
life,
for
with re-
to preserve
304.
mance
v.
Tattam,
Ambl.
77.
TRUSTS.
3<)5
If the
it
Trus-
exercise
it
upon
the Court,
a proper occasion,
it
And where
eldest Son,
it
has some-
for a Sister
b
.
in a
conveyance
payment of
And
Remainders'.
in
debts,
and
to
the
Sale".
It has
been
said,
do,
for
Trustees, in clear
'
See Woodhouse
v.
to </o,
Hoskins,
and the
';
but
it
seems,
16 Ves. 307.
* Frewin and Charlton, 1
Eq.
Abr. 386. quot. 16 Ves. 304.
it
cases,
is
not necessary
to apply
to
the
Basset v. Claphara, 1 P.
358. quot. 10 Ves. 305.
" Piatt v.
Spring, 2 Vein,
303.
See Fearne on Contingent
Remainders, p. 336. and Mr.
Cox's note to Basset r. Clapham, 1 P. Wms. p. 358.
'
Wms.
'
EQUITY" JURISDICTION.
396
The
doctrine
however, involved in
difficul-
on
ties
so
much
is,
upon
Judge
ever
as
is
will
have
The
task
is
abilities
well to execute.
The
that
if
first
Tenant
Tail
in
is
breach of Trust
and so
come
to
who have
every Pur-
we
of Trustees to preserve
the situation
Remainders,
is
but when
first
venient for
that
it is
where they
directed tc join.
to
The
re-
as the
of Mankind,
Remainders, even
if
the
Tenant
in Tail of age
."
for the
Tenant for
Life, liable to
impeachment
for
Waste,
TRUSTS.
or a
his Estate
liable for
is
who by
vie,
the nature of
Neither ought
Remainders
397
Tenant
to permit the
to doubt,
whether
tively, to
prevent Waste
Trust Terms
it is
duty
his
to interpose ac-
r
.
usual in Settlements.
Where
is
also a
Covenant by the
real Estate
is
considered
nant be to
settle absolutely
and
it is
still
the party
must
first
resort to the
personal Estate
tle
It is the
broken, so that
vered, for
Lands, and to
as tiiix*
Covenant
If there be a
raise a
upon the
to set-
Covenant
for the
for per.
but no
q
r
15 Yes.
b
J3.
Edwards
Wms. 438.
v.
Freeman,
"2
P.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
398
any
in
may make
Parents
which
shall
surviving*
ed by
many
it is
a Rule, establish-
ed to be paid
at
ed by a Provision^ that
if
they attain
those pe-
riods in the
life
not be paid
till
ly framed to obviate
(a clause original-
by
of twenty-one,
for
it
as a hard thing to
impute to a
be a probable intention in a
Edwards v. Freeman, 2 P.
437. and see 1 P. Wms.
Wms.
293.
d
Woodcock
against the
Bro. C. C.
Burdett, 9 Ves.
Duke of Dorset, 3
570. Powis
435.
v.
e
Willis v. Willis, 3 Bro. C.
C. 54. and see Emperor V.
Rolfe, 1 Ves, 208.
f
Hope v. Clifden, 6 Ves.
499. Willis v. Willis, 3 Ves. 51.
Powis v. Burdett, 9 Ves. 428.
King v. Hake, 9 Ves. 438.
Schenck v. Legh, 9 Ves. 300.
v. Renons, quot. 9
Jefferies
Ves. 311. Emperor v. Rolf,
1 Ves. 209.
TRUSTS.
Parent, the
liberty to
as they
399
would not
in
of*
the Words,
mixture of
on
Out where,
parental feeling*.
at
in
addition to the
is
a further pro-
living
contingent
The
''.
Portion, depends
&c." the
should, so
gift,
seems,
it
upon the
particular penning of
Lord
*.
to
down
some
them
but
if
it
accordingly
and
and others,
Hope
v.
Clifden,
507.
"See Schenck
300.
i
Codrington
Ves. 379,
C Ves.
k
Lyon v. Chandos, 3 Atk.
and see Ravenhill v.
417
Dansey, 2 P. Wms. 179.
Wms. 484.
[ 2 P.
;
v.
Legh, 9 Ves.
v.
Lord Foley,
;;,
EQUITY JURISDICTION,
400
and
circumstances.
and
Stanley
v.
,n
is
said in
Stanley
if
cording to
its
Instrument
The
first
intention of the
."
cases in
or-
decisions
1
.
Lord
Macclesfield followed
cases
that
it
m Stanley v. Stanley, 1
Atk.
549; and see Stevens v.Dethick,
3 Atk. 42.
n
1 Atk. 549.
lb. 380.
2 Vera. 458.
* 1
to
says
TUUSTS.
to
intl
Term with
it
Wn-
raisin-
tearing an
is
Batate
eldestSona of far/lift M,
encourages undutifulness and inipiovid< nt
marriages"
may
the
therefore,
if,
Settlement any
it
igj
tiling
appear, that
it
can
l>e
which
of the Parties to
Court
is
the
Where,
solutely to be paid
marriage, but
at the age of
commence until
to
sort,
do not now
the Life-time of
the.
is
common
where there
to direct
that
upon the
deatli of
v.
Newland,
P. Wms. 93.
* See the arguments
of Lord
Chancellor and Master of Rolls,
in Brome v.
Berkley, '2 P.
Wins. 4S.">. etc. :iih1 Hall v.
Carter, 2 Atk. 365. Stevens v.
Pethick,3 Atk. 42. Reresby v.
7i>7.
to the
I.
v.
Berkley, 2 P.
House of Lords,
:j
Bro.
P. C, 437.
* Hall v. Carter, 8 Atk. 356.
Reresby \. Newland, 2 l\
Wins. 99.
visions.
VOL.
Brome
D D
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
240
be
as not to
lives
till
after
two
If there is nothing
more than a
limitation to
is
Where
tions,
Term
created
is
commencing
raised
2
.
Daughters Por-
for
after the
becomes
vested,
Life of the
Interest
but
Mother
is
is
1
.
payable on Portions,
where there
power
Husband with
the
revoke
y
is
Lyon
all
v.
is
to raise
they remain
not payable
c
:
as
Codrington
Hall
418.
*
long as
so
v.
Lord Foley,
6 Ves. 364. Stanley and Stanley, 1 Atk. 549. and see San-
Rolt
v.
v. Rolt, For.
189.
Carter, 4 Ves. 357.
mark on
of Iblethwaite v. Cartwright.
Butler and another v. Duneombe, 1 P. Wms. 448.
Wms.
that
case
in
4 Ves.
463.
c
v. Newland, 2 P.
101. affirmed Dom. Proc.
2 Bro. C. C. 487.
Reresby
403
TKLSTS.
and
it
and paid
It
before
it is
raised
d
.
no instance of mort-
is
seems to be
f
;
but
the
Rule
that, a
for
either,
and when
the arrears
all
of necessity, be mortgaged, to
fallen into Possession shall
and
portions,
Estates, to
means
it
by
it
in equal rates
pay
When
pay
raising
to
g
pay
be paid
Portions: one,
the other, by
perception
of Profits \
If a Portion be directed to be raised by a given
time, out of the
but
if
will
d
e
no time
payment
not be decreed
d
,
lb.
exclusively intended to
% the Land
for
itself
is
may
be sold
appointed, a Sale
though the
Portion
be
Trafford v. Ashton, 1 P.
Wins. 415.
c
Small v. Wing, 3 Bro. P.
C. 50;i.
d
Sheldon v. Dormer, 2
Vera. 310. Ivy v. Gilbert,
Prec. Ch. 583. S. C. 2 P.
Wms. 13. Green v. Belchier,
1 Atk. 506. Evelyn v. Evelyn,
2 P. Wms. 0C9. Raveuhiff v.
D D 2
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
401
must be
vested, but
Nor
Profits'".
Rents and
be decreed,
will a Sale
there be
if
Premises
methods
Money, imply
of raising
that the
(viz.)
for all
Money
a negative,
is
by
Heir,
it
by
raised
object
seems,
may
insist
a Sale,
h
.
sum
Directing a gross
way
be raised by
to
be
Rents and
to that
and so
Profits,
sum
may be
it
laid
it
of
shall
up
till it
amounts
owes
Daughter,
to a
when
in
sum
than he
owed her
to suppose that he
self a
Debtor
to her,
If there be a
v.
to leave
him-
power
Gilbert, 2 P.
13. mentioned also 2 P.
Ivy
very unnatural
would choose
to charge Premises,
for it is
Wms.
Wms.
Wms.
Butler
1 P.
Wms.
Banks, 3 P.
and
448.
Wms.
with
Buncombe,
Mills
and
7.
h
Warburton v. War bur ton,
2 Vern. 420.
Okeden v. Okeden, 1 Atk.
551 and see Evelyn v. Evelyn,
'
P.
Wms.
006.
TRUSTS.
4Q5
where there
is
a Son,
Settlement goes
all to
or
a remaiudcr-man,
con-
is
When
it
in
of any
satisfaction
have on his
terest at
tion
ought
-to
mentioned
terest is not
because
it
may be
ne-
Maintenance,
But where
children,
for there
there
is
charged
necessarily imports,
tion to be raised,
is
maybe no other
power
upon an
Estate, that
payable, or vested,
power
the Por-
it
is
also
sequence of
shall
to prescribe
be given, provided
Interest
*\
four per
him,
it,
who
what
it
no
04.
by giving
specified by
interferes
rate
k
Beale v. Beale, 1 P. Win-.
044.
Morris v. Burron-hs,l Atk.
402. Metcalfe v. Ives, 1 Atk.
rate of Interest
is
Sum'
Earl
Tonifret
r.
Lord
lb. 512.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
40G
one
side, or
is
no
on the
disability
will not
Rents and
the
of the Bill
filing
Profits
the
1
.
become
it
seems, extends to
Term
is
We
now
proceed
raised
usually
Deeds
by
The Trust
Term to
Purchasers.
assignment of a
to prevent
any
right to
purchased Estate
to
consider,
on
the Trusts
Conveyances
is
to
the
view
e
.
Estates,
channel
Will
r
v
,
or
."
by Deed,
Barrington
to
v.
as
by way of mortgage, or
O'Brien,
Ball
5
ler's
notes to
for
a.
and 381. b.
"Willoughby v. Willoughny,
Ambl.28.
T
As to
For the various modes of
2 Vern. 457.
1
barring Dower,
see
Mr. But-
will, see
Wynch
v.
407
TP.USTS.
not determine
for
which they
in the
continue to exist
Termor,
benefit
for the
owner of
of the
the Inheritance.
If,
Man
for instance, a
seized
payment of
of Lands,
of years to Trus-
in fee
some other
cease, or attend
Equity hold
pose accomplished,
Lessee, and
Inheritance,
conveyance
is,
the
as its
whether declared by
to attend the
In these cases,
the
term
during
Termor permitted
frts
Inheritance or not.
to
is in
in
during the
Termor
the
but
Equity, entitled to
all
is
the
Owner
in
any
continuance
obstruct the
acts of ownership, or in
his Estate.
the original
pur-
it
be disan-
359.
Hayter
v.
Rod,
P. W'mi-
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
108
is
it
not
is
pass, as
follows the
It
to
Representative of the
benefit
1
;
nor
is
the personal
in
follows
all
where
it
has
made of the
in-
a
.
the alienations
in the
assets
and
is
of a Bankrupt % subject to
The
Heir
as against the
Dower
d
,
It is real
or Assignees
f
.
these
Villiers v. Villiers,
2 Atk.
Wife. 331.
"
loughby, 1
T. Rep. 703.
Swan nock and Liflbrd, Co.
b
Lit. 290 . n. 1. s.
13. and
Maundrell and
Maundrell,
Dudley
v.
Dudley, Prec.
Wms.
v.'
Wray,
P.
TRU3T3.
409
is
thereby
Incum-
Crown
(except
brances,
upon
all
debts
''
by specialty
,)
purchase
*;
Term and
the benefit
such
of
outstanding Term,
no
time of the
notice, either
fair
for
must
his pur-
he
express or
Term
With regard, however,
of the
plied, there
is,
in the case of a
down
of the doc-
for
whom
he purchased was
quently that
right
to
term
Purchaser,
wouffe attach,
be
(it
would
* See
Evans v. Bieknell,
Ves. 164. Robinson v. Davison, 1 Bro. C. C. 63.
h
Nicholls v. Howe and
other-., 2 Vera. 390.*Emg v.
yet
assigned to
fi
and conse-
Dower
standing
the
if
married,
if
the
out-
Trustee for
be different
if
the
k
See Willou<dibv and Willoughby, 1 T. R. 708 ami seealso Basset v. Nosworthy, Finch
Rep. 102. where the doetrine
is well stated, and was app roved
by Lord Ro-dvn in Jerrard
and Saunders, 4 Bro. C. Ci
457. Saunders v. Dehew, 2
;
Vern. 271.
*
lb.
EQUITY JURISDICTION".
410
ble with
the determination
sideration, that
is
of conveyancers,
in a satisfied term,
he
may
Vendor of an
Vendor
to the Purchaser
with
Fine;
but
term,
and
if a
it
is
m See
Wynn
v.
Williams,
5Ves. 134.andMaundrelland
Maundrell, 7 Ves. 507. and
10 Ves. 271. S. C. MS. The
decision of Lord Somers on
which this doctrine is grounded, was affirmed in the House
of Lords, Lady Radnor v.
Vandehendy, Show. P. C. 09.
Prec. Ch. 65. 1 Eq. C. Abr.
TRUSTS.
411
Where terms
mily purposes,
well
is
it
if
become unnecessary,
or
effect, or are
and
in
intent
of taking
Another manner
in
by way of Merger.
is
in another
q
;
but
^other-
it is
where there
or
Inheritance
and
in
it
is
a pru-
may
all
there
may have
been,
should be required by
Purchaser to be assigned
p Inham
Morrice, Cro.
vCar. 109. Dighton v. Greenvil,
2 Vent. 329. See also Freeman
v. Barnes, 1 Vent. 80. 1 Lev.
270. quot. in Sugden's " Law
of Vendors and Purchasers,"
p. 330. last edition.
to him, or to a
See Cooke
v.
Trustee
Cooke, 2 Atk.
G7.
r
Inst.
Radford, Hob. 3.
5
Capel v. Girdler, 9 Ves.
509.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
412
'.
was once
It
held, at Law,
may be put
fied, it
as a question to
was
it
is satis-
the Jury,
an
to
the rights
is
now wholly
But
exploded'".
the
even in
will,
140 years,
With
3.
for instance x .
regard to Mortgages,
it
is
a Rule in
only considered as a
is
Trustee
Law,
is
in
it
conveys.
Mortgagee.
It
Nothing
the Civil
alter
real passes
to
the
the
1
-.
The
Evans
184,
5.
Bicknell,
Ves.
Hillary v. Walter,
v.
12 Ves.
251.
Shannon y.
Bradstreet, 1 Sch. and Lefr.
70.
w
31.
x
12 Ves. 239.
Hardcastle,
Sparrow
v.
2 Ves. Jun. 433.
Pettat v. Ellis, 9 Ves. 563.
cited
a
TRUSTS.
41.'{
Remainders may be barred by a Fine and Recoand a Husband may be Tenant by the Cur-
very,
Mortgaged Premises
indeed, an Advowson be mortgaged, and
''.
tesy of the
It',
absolute
in
Mortgagee,
seems,
him
to
shall
nominate'
to present
entitled
is
;
but
Manor
if a
comes
void, the
not
is
must
the
Mortgagee though
Church
in
be-
possession
the Mortgagor
Mortgagor
mortgaged with
is
an
he
is
void, the
or rather, per-
When, upon
Money
a mortgage,
is
made pay-
But
after the
to
day of payment
be a reinfeoffment
feited at
it
'',)
which he pleases *.
is
Casbournev.Scarfe, 1 Atk.
603. S. C. whenal the Kolls,
MS. where Sir Joseph Jekvll
held there could not be a
Tenancy by the Curtesy of an
Equity of Redemption and
*ee 2 Eq. Abr. 504. as to tenancy by theCurtesy, and Roberta
and Dixwell, 1 Atk. 008.
c
Dyer v. Lord Craven,
1 Dick. 062.
d
Croft v. Powell, Com. Rep,
609. argo.
;
gives
the
for-
is
Mort-
c
Arnhurst v. Datrfiog, 2
Vern.401.
.lory v. Cox, Prer. Chan.
'
71.
g
son
see
187;
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
414
gagor
relief,
so as
shall
have
his
to the
it
Heir
it
shall
go
to the
The
principal occasions on
of Courts of Equity
upon
is
close, a
Bills filed,
k
.
is
1.
to redeem;
Mortgage; and
and
2. to fore-
term-
The
1.
Mortgage
right to redeem a
is
carefully
Mortgage Deed to prebecome an absolute purthe Mortgagee upon any event what-
any Agreement
chase in
ever
in a
Estate shall
borrower too
much
because
is,
it
puts the
Anon. 2 Freem.
lii^htson
p.
12.
261.
"
Newcombe v.
8. Howard
Vern.
Bonham,
v.
Harris,
TRUSTS.
No Agreement
413
of the Parties
You
terms
what
alter,
this
upon redeeming
Agreement,
original
or a separate
Deed
."
either in the
Mortgage Deed,
where
it is
advanced, an
Rent
first
for the
if
if
Remainder
at three years
Interest
is
the
the
Money
paid,
is
is
not paid
Interest
granted,
the Party
What
on
years of
will,
if
end, the
done
Estate fraudulently
Money
is
is
a perpetual
1
;
which may
description
v.
Oatles,
2 Vern. 402.
1
See
Floyer v. Lavington,
P. Wins. 268. and the cases
cited in
v.
that
Bonham,
case.
Newcombe
Vern. 7. S. C.
2 Ventr. 304. 2 Ch. Ca. 58,
159.
1
'
I.inguet against Seawen,
Ves. 406.
*
Yates v. JIambly, 2 Atk.
303.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
416
it is
An
Equity of Redemption
Money
4
.
considered as a
is
all
is
in
Equity \"
is
because
it
entitled to
any impediment
such
as
the Mortgagor
in
Imprisonment, Infancy,
it is
not
Infancy
account
may be an Answer
x
.
And
to the objection as to
to redeem,
Common Law y
v.
Thurstan,
17
Ves. 133.
v
Pawlet
Hard. 465.
w
Tenner
v.
Attorney Gen.
v. Tracey,
tioned in note B. to 3 P.
men-
Wms.
287
it
yet
will
in the case of a
280.
u
though
4 Bro. C. C. 254.
Jun.
287.
y St.
419.
John
v.
Turner, 2 Vern.
417
TRUSTS.
The Rule,
it
is
not founded on a
but
the Title
the sake of
lor
so long
after
neglect
Law'.
was held
act
it
cery*
that he
is
Mortg
in
And
Redemption.
/imitations
V--a Mortgag<
by a Will, or anv
takes notice
to
If,
old
is
everso
it
Man
other deliberate
Chan-
to a Bill in
Mortgagee, acknowledgments
Mortgagor
that a
years
redeem
shall not
of such a
the effect
no objection
till
to a
he
satisfied, length of
is
redemption
it,
not
is
ceive
twenty
after
is
the
Tenant
'.
time
And where
it
is
so
to
shall
is to re-
conveyed Ins
Life has
116.
Perry
P.
VOL.
Wms.
I
271.
Anon.
against
Hambly,
Marston,
Proctor
v.
(Jutes,
2 Atk.
140
e
[Jodie
v.
418.
L E
1 Ves.
Healev,
and Bea.540.
Orde v. Hearing,
'
v.
Vera.
EQUITY JURISDICTION,
418
does not
lion
elapse, the
The
arise,
Mortgage
is
redeemable
Redemption
right of
is
z
.
Executors,
Assignees or
whatever
tary) against a
deem
for the
Deed
in the
Pre-
a person, there(as
being volun-
subsequent Mortgagee,
per-
all
may
as to the
re-
Mort-
may any
person
valuable consideration, an
Interest in the
for a
Land
as a
the
of the Mortgagor
a
.
by the attainder of the Mortgagee is in the hands of the Crown, a Bill lies
b
against the Attorney General to redeem
An Equity of Redemption cannot be affected
but a Judgment Creditor may
by an Execution
4
file a Bill to redeem an Incumbrance , provided
If a Mortgage
it
With
gage,
755,
c
Lyster
C. C. 478.
a
See 1 Fonb. Trea. Eq.
267. n. p. and the Authorities
there cited.
" Pawletv. Attorney Genl.
Hard. 465.
d
Kennedy,
Burdon v.
3 Atk. 739. King v. Manissal,
3 Atk. 192. Sharpe v. Earl of
Scarborough, 4 Ves. 542.
e
Shirley v. Watts, 3 Atk.
Corbet
v.
Barker, 3 Anstr.
200.
v.
Dolluwd, 3 Bro.
T HURTS.
may
419
file
session.
take possession;
for,
to
will
Premises, in the
instance,
first
case the
in
deficient,
is
mortgaged
Sale of the
'.
Where an
bringing
should pray
Adcoicsoji
mortgaged,
is
of Foreclosure,
Bill
a Sale
is
may
Equity of Redemption
Stock
mortgaged,
out a
Bill
would
be
Stock,
may
maybe
it'
sold
of a Foreclosure,
dismissed
file
And
sell
Mortgagee
the
of the Advowson*.
Pawnee of stock
instead of
',
it
has been
or East India
upon
notice, with-
which,
it
seems,
But a Mortgagor of
account of what
a Bill for an
is
Mortgagee of
e
lord Penrhyn
5Ves. 106.
v.
a copyhold Estate,
Hughes,
Kempe
v.
Westbrooke,
'
Tucker
v.
Wma.
who
is
"Wilson,
not
P.
Ves. 278.
EE2
II..
Yes. 278.
420
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
in possession,
may
bring his
bill
against a
More-.
and
sure,
may
after
bring
Ejectment
his
for possession
of the
mortgaged Premises".
Where a
Bill
is
Tenant
Recovery,
to suffer a
in tail specifically
to make a good title to the MortThe Covenant of a Tenant in tail Mortfor further assurance, may be laid hold of
gagor,
as a
ground
Where
to enforce a
Recovery
different Persons
p.
out the
Money
of
on a Mortgage, a Foreclosure
who advanced
three others
."Money,
a third each
of the
Bill to foreclose,
to
file
If a Bill filed
dismissed,
is
Time
5
,
bya Mortgagor,
the
Money
for a
Redemption,
at
Foreclosure, and
that operates as a
the
is
Sutton
v.
Stone,
2 Atk.
101.
Sutton
v.
Stone, 2 Atk.
v.
Rand, 2 Bio. C.
Duubuz, 3
101.
p
Tourle
Lowe
v.
Morgan^ 3 Ves.
3C8.
' Stewart against
Worral, 1
Bro. C. C. 581.
Bishop of Winchester v.
Payne, 11 Ves. 199. Garth y,
Tin
If} after
421
and a
a Foreclosure
brings an Action
this
gene-
in
An
'
Mo
Executor of a
will
be restrained
Money
no Heir
is
tacking, frequently
Tacking
Act
of the Register
England
a rule
it is
as to
Country
in that
(and
Mortgagee buys
acquires a
shall,
out
in
title in
the
is
termed
in
in
x>
,
but
in
it
sought to
is
what
prevented
is
the
oi'
be
will
the
first
that
),
if
Mortgage, he
language of the
Cases,
provided
squeeze
the third
second Mortgage
Daslwood
v.
Blythwayj
Abr. 317i
Perry v. Barker* 8 Ves.
527. and S. C.
13
Ves.
IDS.
S. C. IMS.
w
v.
Sail,
the rule
the S. P.
The
p. 14.
solemnly
also
in
'
is
2 Ves. 573.
feq. Casi
And
Marsh
v.
laid
Lee,
G.
ami
rule was
down
2 Yen*.
LQU1TY JURISDICTION.
4-2-2
the
Mortgage, pending
first
brought by the
a Bill
first
unless the
But
a third
a prior
b
.
Mortgage
as a
Trustee only
or
who
has a
gages,
to
the prejudice of
intervening
incum-
brances.
If a
Judgment
or Recognizance,
buys
in the first
Mortgage, he can-
Money on
in the
for
Land'; but
Mortgagee buys
third
both
same
in
&c. and
in the
right ,) he
1
is
allowed to unite
was
if
Land
der
Monet
v.
Paske, 2 Atk.
53.
d
Barnet
v.
Weston, 12 Ves.
130.
e
2 P. Wins. 491,493.
Morret v. Paske, 2 Atk.
53. Stanton v. Sadler, 2 Vern.
f
30.
g Higgon v. Svddal,
1 Ch.
Ca. 149. 2 P. Wins. 493,4.
423
TRUSTS.
Court
from him
If a
will not
take
it
h
.
Mortgagee lends
first
Mortgagor
',
upon
a further
Sum
to the
Judgment, he may
a Statute or
till
both
MorL
the
Man,
buys
that
in
such
prior
is
in
truth agreater
Incumbrance
but
Heir comes to
his
no reason that
re-
he should have
made by another
pay what is really due
therefore
it
be,
without respect
likewise
Judgment
it,
Court
Mort-
will not
Credi-
Monet
v.
Paske, 2 Atk.
53.
Matthews v. Cartwright,
2 Atk. 347.
k
2 P. Wms, 494. and see
Shepherd v. Tilley, 2 Atk.
352.
Mr. Freeman puts a
similar Case, 2 litem, p. 7.
1
the
in favor of the
another
tor,
is
will
Williams v. Springfield,
Vern. 4?>. and see Darcey
49. Phillips
v. Hall, 1 Vern.
v. Vanghan, 1 Vern. 330. Ascough v. Johnson, 2 Vern, 66,
'
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
424
Interest of the
first
Judg-
and previous
to
Mortgage no
interest passes".
An Heir, or
for
by such
Bond% though
there
is
without paying a
no Judgment
and
this,
1
,
the
Bond
nor can a
Bond be
may, against the Heir". If an Estate be devised for payment of Debts, a Mortgagee canit
v
.
1 P.
s
Ex parte; Herbert, 13 Ves,
183. overruling Collet v. De
For. 05. see also I
(iolls,
Sehoales and Le Froy 152.
'
Powis v. Corbet, 3 Atk.
556.
" Hamerton
v.
Rogers, 1
Ves. jun.513. Lowthian against
IIassel,3 Uro. C. C. 102. and
CSG.
p
see
Ambl.
680.
q
Coleman
Ves. 80.
v.
Winch,
TRUSTS.
If an
Executor brings
Mortgage of a term
due; but
also
l) l)t
for
if
4-25
Bill
to
redeem
Redemption
Heir of
files a Bill to
If the
insist
Mortgages, on different
independent Estates of
more than
redeem the
other,
not
sufficient,
last,
two
separate Mortgages
Nor. where
of
different.
Estates to the
redeems
if he
at all,
he
is
be taken as
Mortgagee,
the gross
shall
w
between
the
Mortgagor
Sum
v.
and
Coleman
Wms.
it
in
Winch,
1 P.
77(i.
what
is
11
it
And
observation on Pope
Onslow by Lord Efardwicke,
Seel vid.
v.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
4-26
where
and does by
Estate,
own
his
and
his Principal,
1
directed
*.
Mortgagee
will
It has
enters,
Annual Rests
Interest,
by Agreement,
be
if
into possession
fair Rent, in
discharge
Lands
Mortgagor
If the
session, he
is
is
permitted to remain
not even
A Mortgagee
out
in possession
necessary repair
Premises
And
if
in as
in
pos-
nor
if
the
6
.
is
good condition
a Mortgagee has
as he
found them g
expended Money
in sup-
where
gagee
and
it
may add
this to the
shall carry
Interest
h
,
at
the
same
rate as
Robinson
v.
2 Atk. 410.
c
Moroney
v.
and Smith,
117;
Webb and
dimming,
Duke of St.
v.
Albans, 3 Ves.
25.
ODea,
Rorke, 2
Sed
Sell,
Ball
Godfrey
v.
Watson, 3 Atk.
vid.
518.
and
g
Russell v.
Anstr. 96.
h
3 Atk. 518.
Lefr. 661.
d
Mead v. Lord Orrery,
3 Atk. 244.
' Higgins v. York Buildings
Company, 2 Atk. 107. Colmaa
Woolley
531.
v.
Smithies,
Drag, 2 Anstr,
TRUSTS.
If a
Mortgagee of
he
renewal Fines,
entitled to be reimbursed
is
Mortgagee
mismanagement
in
Possession
for it;
default
he speculates,
if
is
guilty of gross
of the Mortgaged
answerable
:
427
but he
liable
is
it is
Estate, he
only
at his
is
for wilful
own
hazard
Mortgagee
is
not allowed to
make
charge
the Rents
";
and
should be paid
this,
for
though
it
his trouble in
be agreed he
receiving the
employed
at the
':
but
if
upon
Interest
Interest
Mortgage
case of a
Mortgage, principal,
is
it is
To make
Interest on
k
Hamilton v. Denny, 1 Ball
and Beatty, 202. Manlove v.
Bale and Bruton,2 Vein. 84.
Hughes v. Williams, 12 Ves.
subject Could
2 Atk. 534.
"
Godfrey
v.
v.
Tancred,
Watson, 3 Atk.
Hockmore,
49; J.
518. Bonithon v.
1 Veru. 310.
r
Ex parte Campion, 3 Bro.
C. C. 140. see on this subject
2 Atk. 534. Thornhill v. Evans,
1 Vein. 310.
2 Atk. 331.
*
Browne
French
Baron, 2 Atk.
v.
120.
p
Langstaffe
10 Ves. 405
v.
and
Fenwick,
see oft
this
v.
Barkham,
P.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
4CS
1
due, except, perhaps, in the case of an Infant .
If money be lent in Town on Mortgage, the
Where
Creditors
file
five per
a Mortgage carries
terest,
Cent. In-
with Bond
together
prior
having notice
Incumbrancer
w
.
first
Master between a
shewn
3.
is^
x
.
it
has
2. c.
:j.
s. 4.)
that a
mere deposit
Money,
See Bennett
v.
Edwards,
2 Vein. 292.
u
Gyles v. Hall, 2 P. Wms.
378 and see Bishop v. Church,
2 Ves. 372.
* Harris v. Harris,
3 Atk;
722.
w
Digby
Ambl. 612,
lien
against
with-*
y
,
even
Craggs,
p. 12.
y See
Ex
17 Ves. 227
parte
;
v. Russell, 1
and
Lan;ston,
see Russell
Bio. C. C. 2C9.
TRUSTS.
42 J
and
ifl t
appear by
upon the
Evidence,
how
or
far
is
it
made
they were
that
subsequent advances,
Jiut
tli
it
\r\
has never
V deliver
>
which could be
taken upon looking at the Instruments to amount
to evidence, that the Estate was meant to be a
b
security
but
it
for the
of deeds,
dra\vnwill not
amount
to a deposit or Equitable
Mortgage
a cir-
it
Deeds, &c. are not favoured, especially when contradicting a written Instrument
It
that
the deposit
if
may
tention.
remains
first
is
in
when
the Deposit
Mill,
13 Ves.
114.
2Anst. 432.
* But see Vanderzee against
Willis,3Bro. C.
23.
Ex
Hiem
is
very delicate
It is
in
it,
provided that
Creditor,
son, that
the
parte Wetherell,
11
Wilkinson,
12
Ves. 401.
l
Norris v.
Ves.
Ex
'
403
lis
v.
'
Ex
300,
parte
and
IJai^h,
9 Ves.
Nor-
Bee particularly
EQUITY JURISDICTION."
430
and
it
morandum, kept
in his
Man
own
in
whose favour
f
,
it
it is
ex-
the hands of
no notice
is
to the Mortgagor,
to the
if
given
to the
gagee.
An
against Assignees
made good
as
s.
Money
abandon
Conveyance, he
it
it; for
is
and
it
was
being entitled
considered as having
k
.
Vid.
Ex
parte Coming,
9 Ves, 117.
B
Jones
411. Pye
759.
v.
v.
Gibbon*, 9 Ves.
Daubuz, 2 Dick.
Ex
0.
k
Lneas
v.
Commerford,
3 Bro.
trusts.
An Assignment
Dec;!
gives an
to i;;Mst
equitable
upon
and
lien;
Mortgage
;i
entitles the
created by
Trusts,
v,
'
431
and Courts
<-!'
Equity
will assist
in
the enforce-
ment of Agreements
When
a .Man
conveys Land
for the
his debts,
and
ance,
considered as fraudulent
is
it.
An Assignment
though
of
all
his creditors,
amounts
to an
a
payment of
',
per'
ore. ained
there be a provision in
is
Estate
to be void, if a
com-
to s20,
such an
Assignment,
notwithstanding
amounts
Act of Bankruptcy
Ex
to an
Pollen
Wins.
1-27.
Wms.
7-27.
Ex
such
condition,
f)
parte Pournr, 10 V,
Cook's Bankrupt Law,
edit. 5. p, 89; and set- Dut-
14S.
102.
'"
if
Debts amount
v. Husband,
Cannv. Cann,
Ante,
Tarbuck
Vern. 510.
p.
P.
P.
-2-20.
v.
Marbuiy,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
432
tors, is
and
if
by deed
an
is
ed
it is
The
left
is
not
5
.
of a particular Creditor^
is
1. c.
Jac.
15. s.
2.
because
it
for
elegit
l
.
adultery
his
Estate to Trustees, in Trust to pay debts mentioned in a schedule, and such other debts as he
and afterwards A.
damages, and
..5000
Deed, but
filed
a Bill to
it
to
be
his debt
De
recovered
after,
imp s on,
C. C. 502.
Worsley
1 Burr. 467.
v.
Hague
Mattos,
v.
Rollis-
ton,
Dougl.
1 Bro. C, C. 99.
89.
S.
C.
Devon v. Walls,
Ch. 105.
433
TRUSTS.
Man,
If a
in
that
make
in the nature
is
for the
payment,
specialty,
of a
will
it
these,
interest
some
ment
v
.
by such Creditors
Bill
as
veyed
for
come
Trusts of the
Deed
been dismissed
w
;
into Execution,
carried
but,
it
seems, a
Sales,
sell
Mortgage
Where
debts,
in
under
stand out, to
it
raised
Deed of Trust
is
By
the
Common Law,
Barwell
v.
Parker, 2 Ves.
VOL.
I.
at the
Chose in Action
be ex-
Money by Sale or
gages," and Money is
4.
may
in, or
Vaise
that
who
has
come
It
Bill
hibited
have the
to
in,
except in
Ves. 48.
'
Purefoy, 2 Dick.
Vern. 28. but see
Freeman, Prec. Ch.
Purefoy
28. S. C.
Lewkner
v.
v.
105.
*
F F
LampeVs
case,
10 Co. 46*.
EQUITY JURISDICTION".
434
who may
but in
";
be assigned
a
Bankruptcy
and
e
;
Agreement
tains an
make
is
though
it
usually con-
Assignee to
And though a
Chose hi
affection
it
Chose
be without notice*.
the Assignruent
'.
cannot, gene-
be afterwards assigned,
rally speaking,
good
is
parti-
Declaration of Trust
Action
to permit the
name
use of the
is
though
how-
If,
no
Purchaser,
he,
it
is
who
In
Paswas
consideration ;
but see
2 Vern. 595. 3 Chan. Rep. 90.
Anon.2Freem. 145. Robinson
v. iiavasor, Vin. Abr. tit. Assignment, (D) Ca. 29.
out
Soli.
mas
5u3.
Wnght v. Wright, 1
Row v. Dawson, 1
*
Ves.
Ves.
Browne
v.
381 ,
411.
v.
Heathcote,
Atk. KiO.
Ves. 332.
Butl. Co. Lit.
3 P. Wins. 199.
'
Wright
v.
232 b
Wright,
n.
1.
Ves.
of Marlborough, 2
49G.
P.
Wms.
k
Sugden's Vend, and Purcb.
600. last edit, who cites Stanhope v. Earl Verney, But.
note (1.) to Co. Lit. 290",
1 Ves. 307. 9 Ves. 411.
43 J
TRU3T3.
The
reason of the
Common
almost
is in
Law,) since
tended
to
in
it,
of the
the provisions
all
it
refined
been wisdom
have
to
as
champerty and
who were
An
titled to all
takes
it,
subject
same Equity
to the
hands
is
en-
Seller m , so, he
n
,
as
it
was
except in the
by an Assignee
valuable
for
or
consideration;
who
assigned
favor of Trade
Where
made
an exception
in
there
an Assignment of a Mortgage,
is
in general cases,
his risk as to
him
to
what
is
it
entirely at
and Mortgagee, upon taking the account from beginning to end, unless the former joins in the
assignment
1 '.
Thomas
Vern.
:
"
24,>.
n
v.
Freeman,
v.
Austen,
49. S. C.
f>0:5.
Ex
payments
p
Chambers v.
9 Ves. 204- 208.
F F 2
Goldwin,
43 G
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
made
are
to the
ments
and
Mortgage be
purpose*
this,
It is
ill
of a Mortgage without
sum
due r
As between
really
without
the privity
of the
settle
Assignor a
sum
of
Money, which
to
be due,
the Obligor
be otherwise,
ment
if
It
would
w
.
3S9.
r
Matthews v. Wallwyn,
4 Ves. 127.
s
lb. 128. and see Askenhurst v. James, 3 Atk. 271
but see contra the decree in
Earl
and Gladwin
Vein. 135.
v.
Hitchman,
2;
Chambers v. Goldwin,
9 Ves. 270.
Whitaker v. Rush, Ambl.
'
407.
v
ford,
w
.
TRUSTS.
of
Ileal or
nt
Law,
437
are, it
seems,
Equity
assignable in
But an assignment of
x
,
as
y
.
has,
be bad':
where
it
Not only
Trust
maybe
in esse,
e
.
in
Equity'. Assignments
by an Husband, of Choses
in Action, belonging to
a Trust,
assigned
We
proceed
2.
now
The doctrine as
its full
to
but
it is
only
Warmistry v. Tanfield,
Rep. 29; and see 1 Ch.
1 Cb.
Ca.
y
(a).
1 (Jeo. 2. st. 2. c.
Crouch
note
8.
vises, p.
*
Stone
v.
14.
Martin, 2 Vera*
595.
c
Touchst. 239. Perk. G8.
Jones v. Roe, 3T. R. 88.
d
Hobson v. Trevor, 2 P.
Wms. 191. Beckley v. Newland, 2 P. Wms. 181.
l
1
Havwood
Warmistry
1 Ch.Rep. 29.
Ante 383.
v.
Tooke, MS.
v.
Tanfield,
438
LQt'ITY JURISDICTION.
this
Work,
is
here necessary tobc considered; for they alone peculiarlybelong to Equitabie cognizance.
all
Devises of Land
Nor
is it
in
is
Law
for
words would
those cases
in
words,
professes to
decisions
Law, and
follow the
must be
Common Law
most con-
clusive authorities.
Jn
all
is
an express
the Estate
is
in
is
exclu-
Court of
Law
the
will
if
a Case be sent to
it, if
for theiropinion,
in
Legal
hem
Estates
as
to
If, for
and a
instance, an Estate
Bill
is
filed
by the
is
agreed to be sold,
Vendor
to enforce
specific
make
served,
a good Title/'
it
is
referred to
Upon
this,
as before
ob-
TRUSTS.
if a
good
title
439
may
upon
the
Chancellor
mine
lie
called
to
deter-
the legal
is
to an
title
Common Law
the Courts of
upon
though
often called
Estate,
never can,
in
any
to
to an Estate.
title
But though
may
Chancellor
tion, yet
if
Parties wish to
(unless the
have a Judgment
without directing
a case,) he
Law Courts
usually directs a
3
thus
acknow-
certainly are,
We
questions.
shall
not, therefore,
Chancery
b
,
(in
which
is
confor-
exclu-
titles
and
'here
is
no difference between Law and Equity in determining upon the effect of a testamentary act c
,
Equity having
(with
Court of
Law
See Attorney
Vigor, 8 Ves, 272.
'
has
Gen.
-and
" Preface.
Habergham
r
d
Atkinson v. Hutchinson,
3 P. Wins. 259.
See Duke of Marlborough
v. 1 ord Godolphio, 2 Ves. 74.
'
v.
Ves. Jun. 2o o, 0.
Vincent,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
440
give a
legal
Estate, in
Law, do also
in the
for Lite,
same Rules
as
decided by the
is
in
a
between, what are termed, " Trusts
executed," and " Executory Trusts.
difference
3 '
be no difference of construction
Equity, from what there
f
a legal limitation
It
is
in a
Court of
in a
strictly
is
not so to
Tenant
for
all
collateral
as of legal Estates
purposes,
Life of an equitable
The
the
is
subject, peculiar to
'
Wright
v.
Pearson,
Norton
since, a
cannot
Estate,
Trusts,
is
ex-
cognizance of a Court of
a series of decisions on that
those Courts.
Ambl.
trine
3(>2.
e
consideration of Executory
clusively under
11
v.
Mascall,
2 Vera,
but in Chapman
v.
Blisset,
24.
h
Wright against Englefield,
Ambl. 473. Cary v. Bertie, 2
Yern.
held, clearly,
TRUSTS.
411
him upon
and
a devise, "
already put
is
is
in
in a case before
a proper course,
(a case
it
it,
ought not
meddle with
to
in point determined
k .''
Law,
of Courts of Equity
Executors or Administra-
tors are
for
to the consideration
of Equity, and
Persons to
all
whom
Bequests are
and as
Courts recourse
of Equity
had,
usually
is
and to those
to
obtain
the
We
is
may condemn
The
the object.
be followed where
it
is
plain,
Law which
;
must
words
in the
Will
';
Colaon
v,
Colson,
'1
Atk.
'
Cowper
v.
P. Wins. 741.
Earl Cowper,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
442
shew the
m
tion of the Testator are sufficient
inten-
This inten-
Will taken
the whole
tion is to
be taken from
together,
latent
to
have
in the
Every word
its effect.
whatever may
be the
Every word
Will".
is
bly
that
li," says
Lord
not
is
to
11
"
if the
import"; but
grammatical con-
govern
to be taken ac-
common
strict
is
A Ivan
lei/,
it, if I
by mistake,
may
them
reject
clear,
parts of the
is
it
:
But
r
.
perfectly
and
if
two
know
words
as
an indication of a subsequent
inten-.
tionV
m Dobbins v. Bowman,
3 Atk. 409.
Andrews against Emmot,
3 Rro. C. C. j03.
Vid. Thelluson
ford, 4 Ves. 329.
v
Phillips
4 Ves.
57.
v,
v.
Wood-
Chamberlaine,
4 Ves. .311.
See accord. Haws
3 Atk. 525.
r
247
v.
Haws,
tiiusts.
443
would
if it
t)\e
Testator otherwise,
sensible
1
;
but not to kt
legatees in a Will
a limitation
in different
devisees and
".
supplied, unless
is
it
perfectly
words of art
clear,
way
is
it
in-
fair
is
comes
such
to
be
used,
are
Sy
Whenever
mistake or omission'.
If
and render
uords,
it
is
plain, the
out by strong,
put
interpretation,
The Court
provided
Law
for
bound
it is
v.
Duke
Mellish
into
Cooke,
King
Ves. 32.
of Marlborough
Ixnrd Godolphin, 2 Ves. 01.
49. phillips
Will
inference
v.
Mellish, 4
v.
Laws
that private
to
plain
y
are allowed
and rational
solid,
and
upon,
rest of the
are
effect,
;
by the prima
will abide
facie, intention,
until driven
that
v.
Ves.
Chamberlaiae,
in his
w
Mellish
to
Courts of
v.
Men
be
Law
Mellish, 4 Ves.
50.
x
Holloway v. Ifollowav,
5 Ves. 401. ami see Ambl. 377.
T
Deane v. Test, 9 Vcs. 152,
154.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
411
or Conscience
7
;
and
if
Law, but
that into
effect in a
is to
way, that
is
to carry
mode
the particular
shall fail
In some cases,
may
Where words
as tends to
It has
make
such a construction
it
good
is
b
.
two-
in
fold construction,
express terms
said in
received
c
.
them out of
d
;
Court
it
en-
words
f
;
but
are repugnant
intention manifested in
to the clear
other parts
if
Where, how-
Lord Falkland
v.
Bertie,
Milnes
v.
Holmes
v.
Vern. 337.
8
lb. 329.
306.
Mb. 311,312.
320.
lb. 312.
"Southcote
233.
v.
Watson, 3 Atk.
42.
different parts of
Jones
v,
Slater,
8 Ves.
Cradock, 3 Ves,
Colbeck, 8 Ves,
44j
TRUST.-.
entertained, whether
tenants.
Will
effect, the
is
totally void
for
uncertainty
Such are the rules adopted in respect of judgments upon Wills and it must be obvious that
a decision upon a perplexed Will, must, unavoida;
much depend on
bly, very
tion of a
whole Will
An
2.
."
Executory Trust by
will, is
where the
Law
the
no
such
is
is
to
k
.
as are executory,
is
this.
for settling
his Estate,
Executory Trust,
is
and
Trust executed,
An
where, in
pression of Intention
The
it is left
to frame the
Party
the
is
directions
di-
Constantinev. Constantine,
6Vei. 102.
See what Lord Eldon says,
9 Ves. p. 152. in Deane v. Test.
1
2-31.
of Lincoln v.
of Newcastle, 12 \\>.
Countess
Duke
EQITTY JURISDICTION.
416
as in
of Trusts executed,
In the cases
instructions.
legal expressions
have a
will
immediate devises
at
strict
according to
it
but in the
and words
legal effect,
limitation,
of
as
shewn an
his Will,
be construed
is
by Will
the
'.
former sense.
in the
The execution
Deed,
if the
same
Cases of
of Marriage Articles
out
been adverted
have before
to.
Equity,
is
construction of Courts of
the same, because
Law and
the Testator
is
thought
is
the
Trusts
to
but
mean,
to
in
Executory Trusts, he
to leave
be executed
somewhat
in
and
not according to
to
be done,
more careful
2 Ves,
655.
n
Vid. what Lord Eldon says
12 Ves. 227.
Ante, p. 50.
417
TRUSTS*
This
terms, used
by the Testator
appears
have been
the
to
thoritatively settled, in
Sutton, which
House
doctrine
time
au-
to the
quoted, in illustration
this subject;
legal
first
of Lords 4 .
The case
on
for
of the
it
is
said
the
the
in
this
same.
It will,
though the
is
Voice
is
in the
it.
According to
MS.
Author's possession,
it
was
filed
by
Manor
for life,
Wms.
Wms.
of Great
with a Re-
733. S. C. M.S.
478, S. C. MS.
*1 Fonbl. Treat. Eq. p. 403.
Fearne o Remainders, 140.
1 P.
I*
last edition.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
448
mainder
to his first
Counsel
for the
Son
and upon
Defendant gave Up
which remained
tion
in Tail,
Bent ley
Chancellor to deter-
for the
this the
was
Plaintiff
to have, in
is
stated in
follows: "
Life,
is,
the Chancellor
MS. Report,
Lord Chancellor
alluded
An Estate
to
to, as
one
his
Law, an Estate
Man
in
made
in Tail
and
if
for
body,
has
a Will
ought
to
to think this
you
the
What
shall
Judges
;"
an Estate
in Tail,
but
dants objected
day when
;
the
that,
to,
so
it
but
for the
Counsel
if
you
opinion of the
for the
stood over
Defen-
the next
till
but
be an Estate
will,
same
said,
it
" as
should
now
Purchase
and that
be conveyed
to the
Plaintiff for
his
it
should
Life,
Re-
mainder to his
It is
first
Son, &c."
made upon
frSVST.
4 !D
which was
be cited, as
therefore, properly
cannot,
executory^ and
between Trusts
however,
is
distinc-
may be mentioned.
The decisions in
Trusts, do not
That
fully
alluded
cases before
a deci-
these
of Executory
cases,
Lord Hardwicke
arise,
says, from
upon
upon a
a trust, than
circumstance
to
in
legal Estate,
the will
lias
clause repug-
An
by
will to
A.
Es-
and
for Life,
to
Common Law,
in Shelley's case
h
,
gives
by his Will
Life,
is
and
to the
to
A.
for
considered as Executory,
on account of the
how
the
VOL.
I.
v.
Dixweil, 1 Atk.
C G
1 Co. 93.
to the
form
450
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
be
power of the
in the
And where
his
power
dock the
to
A.
to
be conveyed to
strict
vested to convex),
m whom
this
^'c.
is
as in cases of
Marriage
Articles,
so*
as
e
;
Testa-
but
is
an executory Trust,
in its
it
should not be
Wherever, indeed, in a
has
it
for Life,
body, a
lands
to be settled
as not to
taker to destroy
first
were directed
and so
tor
mere direction
h
.
to
convey an Estate
convevance
In Wills
as in
entitle
to
A.
A.
to a
'.
Marriage Articles
l
,
cross Re-
c
See Roberts and Dixwell,
Atk. 607.
1
Huskerville
v.
Baskerville,
2 Atk. 279.
e
Leonard v. Earl of Sussex,
2 Vera. 526.
'
rester 3.
Sir
1
J.
Stamford
v.
Hobart,
Bro. P. C. 288.
B
Marryat
130,
v.
Townley, 1 Ves.
h
Stanley v. Stanley, 1G Ves,
491.
Legate v. Sewell, 1 P.Wins.
87. Bale v. Coleman, 1 P.
Wms. 142.
k
Marryatv. Townley, 1 Ves.
102, 104. Green v. Stevens,
12 Ves. 419. 17 Ves. 04.
'
603
ljfitXSTS
hi
cases
all
Money
4 31
to
The Only
sense.
execute that
be the Conveyancer,
create a perpetuity;
but
if
Executory Trusts,
tablished in a variety
wicfee,
in his
supposed
to
it
will give
of cases
decision in
as to
it
effect"
Trusts executed
we have
as
Law,
Intention be ac-
the
between
is,
to
is
whetherthe Intention of
is,
The
if there
seen, fully
and
es-
Bagskaw and
Spencer,
is
tinction between
them
and
thought to have
is
By
'.'
this observation, it
is
apprehended, Lord
by the Will
itself,
without any
only directory,
is
G G 2
C. C. 535,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
43'2
will to be
that
was
all
made
but
cases,
them
" Trusts
executed.''
It
of
of a Logician.
The remark
anew,
So long
as
and Hop-
was owing
decision in
of the
first
MS. Reports
of this case,
Indeed, in one
time
fairly
it
It
may
therefore be
of
it
If there
was
of deliberation.
According
to
is
Convey-
no Conveyance directed,
Atk. 580.
I ad-
TRUSTS.
453
mit the Court has thrown out such sort of expressions, but I think there is no difference, all
Trusts arc executor//, and whether a Conveyance
be directed by the Will or not, this Court must
when asked
decree one,
at a
tinction"
The
has had
its
case
of Hopkins
to
The Author
Forrester
has
possession, a
in his
in
any thing
is
impeached
is
no reason
very ex-
in
but there
it
cellent note
and Hopkins
to
case by
But
it
is
given
language attributed
Hopkins, and
ports
in
of
clown a doctrine
to hirp
alluded to of
a case so long
Report of Atkins.
in the
subsequent
which there
and
are
many Re-
manuscript,
in
way
every
he
consistent
lays
with
the notion of
in this
Court.
Law
executor//,
At Law,
and
are to be executed
and joined it
a Trust executed
is
and therefore
and to bring it
to the use,
a Legal Estate
to
Cas.
1
The
i*
in
<lica,
Vol. Collectanea
413.
Jua-
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
45-i
be executed by a
Conveyance."
so
doctrine
seemed only to
and
to carry conviction.
The
true objection of
seemed
a Scholar
rate,
and
which
to
Logician and
as a
to
sufficiently intricate^
It
was
to this classification
He
Law, he shook no
decisions, as
seriously,
In
as
factj
altered
some seem
no
have
to
but undeservedly
the
Term "Trust
ever wrong in
was convenient
in argument,
original introduction, so
its
how-
we
find
Lord Hardwickc
(to
the great
astonishment of
in cases anterior, as
well as
where he had so
of the
use of
term, though
it,
nessofits
introduction.
Lord Mansfield,
and glory
his
first
and Blake ,
argument observed,
Trusts
executed
and
TRUSTS.
Trusts executory
observes, "
existence
it
is
Trust that
of a
bu executory,
it
within the
is
Uses.
in sense.
He
\<
ry
be-
Statute of
he,
Lord Hardmcki parBagshaw and Spencer" It is
thus, he calls in the aid of Lord Hardwicki *s opinion to sanction his own. gives credit to that
opinion, and delivers his own without the least
" :
ticularly remarks in
symptom
of doubt or hesitation.
In his Judgment
in
that he argued
sift
as
he had
recently
eyes of
all
upon him,
after the
a period
decision in
is
not
Laming
h
,
all
his Lordship
and observes,
tion,
in a
'
there
reiterates
was no
the
opinion,
executory."
Thus
again ad-
observing
upon Trusts,
in
conformity
Vol. Collectanea
dica, 316.
Juri-
for
such Conveyance
2 Burr.
110b.
"
45S
EQUITY. JURISDICTION".
With
nion of
in
exact confor-
their very
If Lord Mansfield
Lord Hardwicke as to sup-
tallies.
so far misunderstood
but also the cases and diswhich that Term was applied, he
went
Hardwicke
far
<
distinction
between what
have been called Trusts executed, and Trusts executory, proceeding too, from Characters so eminent, from as great a Chancellor, and as great a
Chief Justice
of whose great
as ever
adorned
abilities
this country,
Lord Chief
he hardly knew
which
Kenyon
to think
"
protested,
w as
r
both
late
it
might
cated.
however, found
its
vindi-
supporters, and
and ingenious
JSIr.
who
has
who is
devoted many a
Fearne,
Contingent Remainders,
to a long
Lord Hardwicke.
to
and elaborate
be the erroneous
According
to
Mr,
TRUSTS.
Fearne%
Trust executed,
is
that
itself,
is
to attach
is,
by the Will
to
4j7
itself,
Convey-
cutory Trusts, as being those which are only directory, or prescribe the
some
future
Mr.
limitations of
by the Will
them.
intended
made,
be
to
According
to
the
for
this
effectuating
mode
of
arguing,
Lord Mansfield
affixed
to
become such by
By
it.
the
legal Estates
where no
subsequentConveyance wasnecessary andtosuch
the Statute of Uses,
;
The words
exclusively applicable.
of Lord
to this effect,
Estate
Perr'in
in other
ticularly
words
is
legal
is
observe,
in
a legal
Estate."
that neither
'
Trust executed
Fcarne
is
;''
definition of
it,
is
We
in a
must
par-
Trust exe-
according to Mr.
p. '217. etc.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
for in
scribed by him, a
would be necessary
the Cestui que Trust
in
in
both cases to
is,
"
One essen-
is
to con-
it is
to
this
it
and
or not,
and so
make any
tator has in
that
is,
in the Trustees,
to
convey
The
couched under
:-
in
them
the terms
was
clear
Trust executed, he
was bad.
But, says
Mr.
Fearnc,
TRUSTS.
legal Estates, or
ferences
Uses executed
somewhat
forced,
termed, a torture
fairly
i\j[)
and then by
in-
may
be
and by what
of words,
lie
some
cites
I )/.ciccll,-a
Caseaw-
sists that
said in
be the Case,
if
the opinion of
and Spencer,
we do but
Lord Hardicicke
as to
Trust executed.
as
line
consider
is
how
in
explicit
Bagshaw
may
possibly
all
Can
legal Estates or
there be a doubt of
it ?
Uses
What
much
and
to support,
in
laboured so
Common Law
convey
to
life,
united so
in the
first
person, as to
that the
same
sorts of Trusts,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
AGO
Now
distinguished between
Fearne, he expressly
Mr.
here, says
legal
sorts of Trusts;
but therefore
in
terming one
he recognised a distinc-
tinction
in question
dis-
was
and
which the
timents such as
these,
it
difficult
is
to divine.
all
cutory,'*
Estate,'*
how could
meaning
How
it
was
a legal
possible to suppose, as
Uses executed
The
so strenuously contends.
full
It
may be
length,
proper to
Judgment
respecting the true and natural import of what
Lord Hardwicke has said. " To be sure where an
the reader more correctly to form his
A.
for life.
TRUSTS.
and
body of A. such
Common Law
4(jt
a devise
so united in
tin-
the
all
J3ut
in
direction therefore
are to direct
how
falls
upon
this
liberties in the
construction of executory Trusts, than where the
Trusts are actually executed." It cannot be
of the
Case.
in the sense
but
it
executed improper
but as
it
denominated or
not,
it
did
it
not affect
once
He
the sub-
as
also
in
2 Ves. 223,
EQUITY JURISDICTION,
4(3*2
shews
his
marked
phrases,
what
*\
is
called,
a Trust exe-
iC
cuted"
rooted dislike
the term,
to
the denomination,
first
promulged, as be-
(a
Case
to
zealously adhered to in
Judgment
in
and
deliberate
Baskerville, so
Mr. Fearne.
It was never doubted by Lord Hardwicke but
that there were some sort of Trusts so created,
that the
interfere
with them
in
discretionary manner,
that there
interfere,
often acted
upon such a
disapproved of
it,
if it
it,
appa-
though he
fortified
with Decisions
latter kind,
names
to
sion of Terms,
things,
Who
No
this
head
trusts.
remark.
l
-
4(53
itself,
which
is
the very
among
its
ground-work of
all
perdas
si
act
by destroying
objects,
sci<
ccrte
distinct io
executed
at
Law by
Trusts executed
in
the
to
confusion
for
ed against
Can any
in others.
other instance be
two very
different things
Does any
which may
the position
already alluded
to,
and
Conveyance
as for instance,
where
by the Will,
in
is
directed
will interfere
and meaning of
it
Conveyance
directed, but
1 Vol.
p. 238,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
464
other,
Trusts executed
tion with
as to the propriety
men-
of the name.
tioned decisions were bad, but though not satisfactory, lie felt the necessity of abiding by them,
as an
had been
it
previously appropriated.
Lord Hardtvicke
Spencer, "
laid
says, in allusion to
Bagshaw and
;)
in
it
it
my
if it
had come
weight
little
but that
should
predecessors, as not
all
to
have omitted
this
impor-
Im-
tant passage
Is
it
putation
Does
it
Lord Hardwicke
in his opinion,
and
his submis-
his Error
Lord Hardwicke,
by the
sions,
2 Ves. 323.
TRUSTS.
feeling an
4C)5
extreme veneration
Lord Hardwic/ce.
it
deavour to rescue
seemed
of dutv to
a sort
of
en-
from what
way
in the
all
in
it
is
is
now
considered,
or
if
Bags/taw and
it
Will
of the
in
that Case,
anomalous Case/'
as
as "
must be viewed
it,
an
or at
cutory Trusts
for that
he considered
There
is
it
able as he was,
an
clear.
as
Coke,
would
to
make such
expounded
Judgments reported
literal
may
yor,
i,
interpretation
3 Rep.
S4\
if
Judgment
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
4(56
Under
this
Head
Payment of Debts
for the
are classable
but as
it
re-
be
will
as a part of that
subject.
We
and
2.
if
Legacies
not
for
expressly
We shall
Equity.
afterwards consider,
chases
made
in the
of a Court of
which
arise
3.
That
from pur-
4.
Resulting Trusts.
The whole
it
is
founded on the
is
cutor or Administrator
his hands,
is
bound
who
Exe-
to
in case of Intestacy
The
Adair
Lefr.
202
is
the
v.
;
Execution of a Trust*,
TRUSTS.
It isplain that
4(J7
Executorsor Administrators
the Pel
in
over
it,
Power
Power
Jt will
'.
not
or Bankruptcy
'";
cumstances) vests
Husband
in the
cutrix or Administratrix
their
Crimes
f
;
',
cir-
Feme Exe-
of a
nor
is it
any
legal or beneficial
If they had
fer
it is
forfeitable
would have
a power of bequeathing
it
go to their Executors or
Administrators
bonis non of the
The
it
by Will,
but to the
';
first
Testator
Admiu
de
are
numerous enough
with regard
." It
to
in
Assets
Lord
Jeff'eries, in a
b
Duke of Rutland v.
Dutchess of Rutland, 2 P.
Wins. 211; and see Humphrey v. Bullen, I Atk. 458.
c
Lord Raym. 1307.
d
Fair and Newman, 4T. K.
621.
who overruled
till
Demurrer
Case where
s
"
a Bill
was filed
Exec.
Lloyd v. Stoddart, Ambl.
Off.
152.
'
lb.
Smith
v.
Hoskins, 3 Atk.
387.
I
Howard
134.
1 Bos.
u u 2
v.
Howard,
Vera.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
46S
by an Executor
AcCre-
but the
became
From
frequent,
Account may
and
it
that
way
for
an Exe-
time such
Suits
that an
Estate, notwithstanding an
Account
before taken,
in the Spiritual
Court".
institut-
is
out Suit
and
it
not be allowed
q
,
though
in
to account, will
r
.
If there be
files
a Bill
confirmed
obtains a final
ra
Buckle
v.
Atles,
2 Vern.
Axtell,
2 Vern.
37.
n
Bissell v.
and
Bill,
demand
is
con-
Surrey
v.
Smalley, 1 Vern,
47.
Bright v. Woodward, 1
Vern. 360. S. P. 2 Ch. Cas.
201. Darston v, Earl of Ox-
y.
jwu
TUUST9.
firmed, the Executor
the
first
who used
first
diligence.
If a Decree be obtained
for the
4^v
on
a Creditor's Bill'
Creditors sue at
Injunction, to
If before
dif-
may be
the Estate
gained
although
When
Bond
it
at
Law*.
Creditor
files
a Bill on behalf of
own
particular debt,
Decree
for a
suffer another Bond Creditor, who has obtained Judgment, to proceed against the Estate w .
Sale,
If the
Court on the
decrees a Sale,
in
of a
Bill
Bond
Creditor
Ashley
for
v.
208.
1
213.
sold,
Martin
v.
213.
Martin
v.
Martin, 1 Ves.
" lb.
Law
to
Money
and
joins,
214.
Sum
of
he having
Martin,
Ves.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
470
but upon a
it
Com-
was done by a
by the Heir
Bill
at
compel a
in Trust of Lands, to
be allowed
been
file
who
a fair purchaser
to disturb
has
length of time,
and
question, what
the
is
good
legal
of which
is
arisf as to
such debts
of Equity, un*il
debt be good
it is first
at
Law
determined
in a
admi-
Court
and
Law
onty necessary to
if
retained
is
Plaintiff to proceed at
fore, it is
in the
7
:
on
make
a few observa-
tions.
An
as against
adebt due
to himself,
for himself
a
.
And
and
alsc a
debt due
Martin
v.
Elliott
v.
Martin,
Ves.
214.
y
Atk. 43.
S. C.
in Trust
Merriman,
Barn.78.
'
* Hartwell
Ves. 815.
a
Cockroft
Payment
v.
Hartwell,
v.
Black, 2 P.
Gore,
B.
u:
471
STt.
It
seems.
it
a Creditor by
Bond
Executor, retain
or
Judgment, may,
like an
Law,
if
a Creditor
oi
ets
f
,
considered as a Trustee in
Personal Estate
Testator's
entitled to retain
queaths away
gift
tC
his debt,
ai,
tiis
Equity,
and Legatees, on
as to Creditors
is
in
ex-
is
debts
';" for
as part
Nor
the
if
1
it,
is
he
Testator bethe
implied
anomalous
Case
which may
and
it is
this.
in bar of
first
an
mentioned,
paid, in the
If
be
is
entitled
is
be
to
'
Phillips v. Phillips,
Yelv.
Prec.
2 Freein. 11 and
see Browne and Selwyn, For.
v.
242. S.
v.
Gower, 2 Vern.
Hudson v. Hudson, 1
Atk. 461. Fox v. Fox, 1 Atk.
463. Wankford v. Wankford,
v.Phillips,
S. C.
('.
Fox
iMS.
vol. 8. p. 198.
1 Salk. 291)
"1G0.
but
see Phillips
2 Freein. 11.
Browne
r.
242. S. C. M. S.
'lb.
Selwyn, For.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
472
and
in aid of that is
Real Estate, as
Where
Mortgaged, for
is
Husband, she
after all
to
a Wife's -Estate
benefit of the
right,
entitled
the
at the
time
made on the
Wife ";) but evidence is admissible to shew that
The Title of the
the Wife intended otherwise.
Wife to be exonerated, is considered as precisely
of the
Mortgage a Settlement
is
of the Wife's
Estate
n
.
If the
Mortgage
is
disposal of the
not liable
On
Life,
01
and
if a
Money, which is
bound to exonerate
is
CO,
TRUSTS.
473
With
such
are
promised
pay
to
reap< ct to Assets
and
personal,
lie
they arc
either real
or Equitable.
legal
as constitute the
Fund
or
Legal Assets
for the
payment
of a C
~>u
among
!><
reached o
tne
.11
Creditors.
di
without
the
Aid
may be
and which,
generally
hands of an
1 1<
his Act,
his debts
1 1
Every thing
has nadesubj*
v
.
Equitable
Assets in the
some
respects applied
xecutor are
in
as, first to
this,
that all
Assets*.
by
may
formerly
Cre-
See Smith
v.
Lord Camel-
Ridout
209.
v.
Lewis,
Atk.
y.
Ves. 155.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
4?i
The
payment of
and per-
specialty debts,
is in
1.
or exempted expressly, or by
from the payment of debts.
Land
2.
express!//
plain indication
devised
for
7
,
not merely
Descended Estates
3.
b
.
that, as to
liable,
The personal
Estate,
is
the fund
;"
is
first
" the
Testator may,
liable to
often called,
if
but the
"
lb.
words
purpose, or,
for that
mented')
plain, or necessary
words
press
doctrine
(a
manifested intent*;
a plain
RUSTS.
la-
a declaration
tantamount
inference,
It
'.
much
to
ex-
impossible to express in
is
definition,
to
but
mode
may be
It
'.
not merely
found,
in
mode
also in the
in
which the
priated to the
may
it
Estate
pressed
mere
it
SeeFerreges
gift
m
,
as,
where there
v.
Robinson,
incll v.
Prothero,
Burton
v.
3 Ves. 111.
',
unless
a gift to
is
";
CO.
v.
to exonerate
gift
Tower
upon
not in
305
be a specific
shew
exonerate
it
be so appro-
is
is
payment
as to
given,
real Estate
of that debt
is
'
11 Ves. 180.
Brummell
Prothero,
v.
2 Bro.
m
<J.
C. 273.
Walker
2 Atk.
(.24.
S.
and
C.
Jackson,
Wils.24;
Bro.
(J.
C. 570.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
470
shew
payment of a
lapses,
neration, but
it
way
though
of an Executor,
under circumstances that would give to him beEstate, and not leave
distributable to
an individual
debts,
it
for the
pay-
for,
as
it is
intention that
the real
to
of
gift
ment of
have
will not
it
all
an
Estate, if
necessary,
is
to
shall
be
apply a particular
it
But though
a Will
vour of a Legatee
shew
r
.
Hale
v.
Cox, 3
13ro.
C. C.
324.
p
Grey v. Minnethorpe,
3Ves. 100. Stapilton v. Colville, For. 202. S. C. MS.
q Tait v.
Lord Northwick,
4 Ves. 810. Dolman and Weston, 1 Dick. 20. S. C. 2 Vera.
740. Prec. Ch. 456. contra
Adams
418.
tiil
477
but
it
who
is
Where
Mortgage
a person
owner of the
pay and
to
made by
is
dies,
the
on which he
relies,
as
the Security
is
consider-
curity,
is
applicable in
its
and
this,
in
also,
The
favour of
same Rule
is
would be otherwise,
if any Creditors of the Testator would lose their
debts by the Mortgage being paid out of the
it
persona] Assets'.
Heir
If the
tells
Executor
the
to
him
pay
the
for the
upon
that assurance,
called
upon
the
afterwards, or
Executor cannot be
the Legatees be ob-
liged to refund'.
If a
man
Hale
v.
Cox, 3 Bro. C. C.
v.
Lancaster ,2 Vern.183.
Evelyn
Evelyn, 2 P.
v.
Wms.
455. Robinson
252.
c
Lovel
-324.
v.
Bartholomew
Ge, 1 Ve.
v.
May,
Atk. 487.
* See contra as to Deyiiee
Bro. C. C.
an. 185,
214. S. C. 1
Vw.
47S
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
the Vendor,
that
he
own
his
be indemnified,
shall
to be paid out of
debt,
Estate, but
remains a
it
it
charge
it
and
if
upon
must
be paid out of that Estate, and not out of his personal Estate
5.
to one, subject to a
Covenant
enter into a
ed,
the Party to
it
to
his
whom
it
descended,
personal Estate
The
own k
if
the charge
is
liable
is
Contract,
his
real
as a specific
Heir
at
Law, and
Executor
his
way
of
Son
as
* Butler v. Butler,
5 Ves.
538. Tweddell v. Tweddell, 2
Bro. C. C. 101. 152. Woods v.
Huntingford, 3 Ves. 131. Parsons v. Freeman, Amb. 115.
Forrester against Lord Leigh,
Ambl. 173. and see Earl of Oxford v. Lady Rodnev, 14 Yes,
'
417.
I
whole of
pledge by
pledg-
the latter
by
Estate,
such
is,
who
pays the
3 Ves. 128.
J
cr,
2 Bro, 008,
TRUSTS.
debt
was
It
479
mixed debt of
done no act
is
personal debt,
his
it
if a
make
to call
if
by his
his
personal
was the
is
original
vious
for his
therefore,
Mortgagor
it
the
make
that in-
it is
transfer of the
take
where
make
and
Estate
is
Mortgage, and
obliged to
as
have a
no Assignee will
Mortgagee,
if
he does
Bond
to the
new
it
meaning
to
If a Person
who
a personal debt
not have
Where
is
on the
it
Debt
n
.
Equity of Redemption
a Purchaser of an
tor's
Heir shall
Wood v. Httntingford, 3
Ves. 181. and see Billinghurst
against Walker, 2 Bro. C. C.
008.
n
Hamilton against Worlev,
4 Bro. C. C. ]!>'J.
Pockley v. Pocklev, 1
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
480
Redemption
If an Equity of
is
considered as possessed
passes as such.
it
by lapse of
is lost
&
4 Win.
& M.
c.
14.
to
and
if
selling
was not
tute, therefore,
the statute
liable
to the obligee
was passed
that
it
sta-
to
in
Con-
to fraudulent Devises
b
,
value of assets
coming
sion in Fee,
as
aliened
11
who
ter is entitled
by way of
By
& M.
possessio fratris,
14.)
where there
is
Fremoult
v.
Portions,
Dedire,
IP.
Wms.
431.
b
Kinaston
204.
Clark, 2 Atk.
&
W.
for
payment of debts
according to an Agree-
See
IP. Wms.
v.
is
and
277.
Kinaston
204.
lb. 205.
v.
Clarke,
2 Atk.
481
TJIUSTS.
ment
before Marriage,
shall
Heir
at
And though
be of force.
it
generally
to let
is,
though the
for
such a
simple
must come
rata\
for
in
with
there
is
lien
the other
no
relief
devise,
contract, to
specialty,
payment of debts
effect of
Creditors by
in
by
11
who,
on the Laud
in
1
Creditors pro
but in a Court of
entirely
it
stands,
as
it
If,
payment
Creditor would
1 P.
164.
"Deacon
v.
Smith,
3 Atk.
326.
r
Hearnes
v,
Banee, 3 Atk.
CGO.
VOL.
I.
I I
arid
'
Bro. C. C. 312.
*
Harerave v.Tindal, 1 Bro.
C. C. 135. Batsonr. Lingreen,
2 Bro. C. C. 04. Bailey v. Eikins, 7 Ves. 222,3.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
452
of Creditors,
not
is
fraudulent within
yet
the Sta-
a devise for
if
the purpose,
Where
upon the
payment of
for the
debts,
realty
time
relates to the
it
debts he
all
And
if
a person
Lands
it
in
Trust to
the debt
is,
7
seems, according to several decisions, revived ;
is
this is not
and
Di-
easily seen,
a
.
must be sold
without
satisfied
And
at all events,
if
Heirs to
Land
sell,
if
is
Money
at
Law
among
what
'
arising
by
the rest, a
their
is
more
Gofton
v.
Mill,
Ch. 9.
2 Vern.
Lex
141.
Pre.
Prset.
ford,
Gilb.
Strafford,
of
3 P. Wms. 84.
a
Executors of Fergus v.
Gore, 1 Sch. and Lefr. 109.
and see note b .
b
42.
Elliot v.
Merryman,2 Atk.
TRUSTS.
4S3
purpose
the
after
particular
is
Estate, so as to pass
by a residuary bequest*
1
.
the
amount to a
charge of the debts upon the real Estate. The Court
is always anxious on these occasions to make a
man do that which is morally just', and hinder
him from sinning in his grave; and iu one
question, whether the terms used,
been construed,
for
f
;
men-
real
tioned)
that implication
If,
the Testa-
charge
if
may be
afterwards destroyed
legacies being
tate real
and
devise to
first
my
deducted, I devise
sell for
payment of debts
all
my
is
to a
andsatisfied
Es-
ll
funeral
debts and
amounts
by
and
his
specifically de-
real Estate
'.
Newman v. Johnson, 1
Vern. 45.
Powell v. Robins, 7 Ves.
209. Badges v. Landen, cited
-i
Ves. 550. Keeling v. Brown,
5 Ves 359. and see a case of
this nature Davis and Gardi-
552.
ner,
c
Randall
Vern. 425.
Bookey,
v.
Manghan
v.
Masson,
2
1
'
Thomas
v.
''
'
Biitwell,2 Ves.
313.
I I
P.
Wms.
187.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
484
So,
where
possess themselves
and
to
And
it
Heir
to
at
Law,
or Devisee
By
a devise, therefore, " after payment of hisdebts," the debts are changed m ; and if there be a
charge of
all
is
payment
devised to A.
Land
for
payment of
where the Testator has Freehold and Copyhold, renders the Copyhold liable, as well as the
debts,
Freehold
payment
Lands by Will,
it
will not
negative words
If there be a devise of
Lands
to
Executors
Son
till
in Tail,
and the Son dies before the debts are paid, the
Estate of the Executors
k
Foster v. Cooke, 6 Ves.
347.
Shalcross v, Finden, 3 Ves.
739.
m lb. 738.
1
100.
Clarke
v.
Sewell, 3 Atk.
is
257.
p Ellison v.
Airey, 2 Ves.
568. Lord Warrington v. Booih;
1 Bro. F. C. 455>
TRUSTS.
485
and
the
Dower
will not
Wife of dower
commence
damages be recoverable
but
in possession,
nor
for detaining
but from
it,
b
.
would
Court proceeded
and directed
c
alone
a Sale
though
this
Testator's intention
and
is
;
seldom agreeable
Profits, in a Will,
mean
Land
for
payment of debts,
and
was
e
;
payment of the
for
by Mort-
for that
purpose,
Money
If,
if
itself
Profits, or
the
it
to the
as
farther,
still
order to raise
in
debts,
it
be frivolous,
if a
times resorted to
b
1 C. C. 176.
Baines v. Dixon,
In cases of
some-
is
e.
Hitchens
v.
Bitcbens,
404.
Berry v. Askham, 2 Vera.
and see
Act of Parliament
2 Vein.
26.
Ves. 41;
Belcher,
v. Earl of Derby,
311.
'
Iw v.
Gilbert,
Bro. C. C.
Wms.
2 P.
13.
Ves.
42.
g
Ridout
105.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
4S(5
Where Lands
Land
If a Real
must
re-
11
all
Debts',
and Annuities, and not merely particuLegacies as " Legacies above mentioned m ,"
Legacies
lar
give either
The
and
is
rule
so
is
afterwards
(Annuities
may
Legacies or Annuities,
by an unattested co-
many
settled in
it
thereby
is
to raise
sistent
when he
for,
and
though
in effect,
Land by an unat-
at liberty to
is
perfectly con-
it is
cases
it is
burthen
it
observable that,
all
1G3.
k
Brudenel
v.
Boughton,
v.
m Masters
Wms.
"
v.
Masters, 1 P.
423.
Bonner
v. Bonner, 13 Ve6.
379.
See Duke of
Bolton v.
Williams, mentioned in Ha'
bergham
v.
Vincent, 2 Ves.
v. Perry,
p As in Nannock v. Horton,
7 Ves. 391.
* Hyde v. Hyde, Eq. Ca.
4S7
TRUSTS.
which
is
of a Real
by an unattested paper
Estate given
is
rated
with
does
not say
it
and
'
that
if
clearly referred
as to be incorpo-
a Testator
and
annuities
all
by
his Will
Lega-
all
only, that,
if at
shall
but
think
Law
it
this
the
Person by
by
executed
s
.
He charges
sa ys
all
the Legacies
i20 to A., he
that
Legacy of
cannot create
or alter any
may by
20
B.
to
before given
may
In several cases,
bergham
it
was holden
Vincent, 1 Ves.
Leacroft against
MayHard, 3 Bro. C. C. 233.
S. C. 1 Ves. Jun. 279. Reay
Jun.
v.
411.
Habergham
v. Vincent, 2 Ves.
231. Com v.
Ba^sett,
3 Ves. 103,4. Attorney Sen".
and Ward, 3 Ves, 827. Rose v.
Jiin.
Cunynghame, 12
Bonner
v,
V es.
37. etc.
that,
Habergham
v.
upon a
Vincent,
'
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
48S
payment of
devise for
debts,
simple
Hardwicke decided
now
to the contrary
v
,
contract
but Lord
and such
is
according to the
Interest
this,
no Interest
have
payment of debts
for the
in aid
Account be
If an
of debts
Estate.
stated
by the
Parties,
it
car-
b
but the
Interest from the time of stating
ries
and
c
:
no Interest
firmed'
if
an account
until the
is
decreed,
it
Master's Report
carries
con-
is
not-;
5S7.
*
Chapman
Harwell
3(14.
Lloyd
v.
Ansell,
MS.
Parker, 2 Ves.
Williams, 2 Atk.
v.
v.
1P8.
\"* Tait
v.
4 Ves. 8l6."
Lord Norihwick,
is
2 Ves, 3C5.
Borret
v.
calculated,
Goodere,
Diet.
428.
d
Vid. 2 Eq. Abr. p. 8, in
marg. Earl of Bath v. Earl of
Bradford, 2 Ves. 588. overruling Maxwell v. Weltenhal,
2 P. Wnis. 20.
TRUSTS.
4S9
be most active
to
becoming
Interest
in
who ought
f
.
demands liquidated by
but
it,
and
arrears of Annuities*
seems, the
tions,
it
terest
nature
as
in their
till
Report
the
',
or
for
payment, by
against Lowth,
C. C. 316. overruling a
contrary doctrine determined
insamecase, 4 Bro. C. C. 157.
S. C. better reported 2 Ves.Jun.
157. and see 1 Bro. C. C. 43.
f
See what is said in Anderson v. Dwyer, 1 Sch. and Lefr.
Creuze
4 Bro.
301.
* Creuze v. Hunter, 2 Ves.
Jun. 157. Sed Vid. as to an-
unities, the
Drapers
Company
v.
ford,
1G2.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
-iyO
Interest, or
or'
which
is
dered as a
As
Jurisdiction,
ground
sufficient
not consi-
14
the
sum
is
',
unless where
and there
is
either
a clause of re-entry, or
n
.
Interest
and
Bail in Error,
obliged
to
pay a
against
The Master
in
is
k
See Mr, Vesey's note to
Creuze and Hunter, 2 Ves.
Jun. 109.
Vid. eases cited in Creuze
and Lowth, 4 Bro. C. C. 318 ;
and see Countess of Ferrers v.
Earl Ferrers, For. 3. and Anderson v. Dwyer, 1 Sch. and
Lefr. 301.
ra
For.3.
n
Morris v. Dillingham, 2
1
Anon. C62.
Stapleton v.
Ves. 428.
q
Goodman
Conway,
v.
Purcell,
2 Anst. 548.
r
Tew v. Earl of Winterton,
3 Bro. 489. and S. C. 1 Ves.
Jun. 451. Knight and Maclein,
3 Bro. 490. Mackworth v. Thomas, 5 Ves. 331. Clarke v.
Lord Abingdon, 17 Ves. 100,
TRUSTS.
special circumstances
-)u\
and
where there
so,
Interest
is
calcu-
is
exceed
the
penalty*.
also a
if
to his
crued
Interest
bar of
is
Dower w
Interest
is
it
was given
and also on
all
debts that in
notes payable at a
it is
uncertain, or
upon shop
in
pay by instalments
and
ac-
Interest
but
entitled
may have
day
is
he
if
Interest
would be given
at
the
Law
Court
Law
in the
Equity,
is
allowed
at
Seton, G Vts.
411.
v.
Lord Winterton,
C. 3 Bro. C. C.
1 Ves. 451. S.
489,
sum which
he
Law*.
x
Parker
v.
Hutchinson,
Ves. 133.
1
Sharpe v. Earl Scarborough, 3 Ves. 557.
u
Clarke v. Lord Abingdon,
17 Ves. 106.
Mb.
Tew
the
Upton
v.
Lord Ferrers, 5
v.
Dornfoid,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
492
Interest
assets,
Where
tates,
allowed on a Judgment, on
not
is
a person, seized
is
they descend
but
if
which
for
when
a general charge
is
made,
part
to
descend, his
the rest,
is
manifest 1 .
Where Lands
all
is
to de-
with
liberty
Deschamps
2Ves.716.
v.
to apply
Vanneck,
when
Davis
C.C. 528.
v.
the Infant
Toppe,
Bro,
TRUSTS.
comes of age
debts
It
403
to
'.
where Trustees
that
Executors,
considered
Law
at
and the
Law
Court
Decisions
to the
which
in
case, the
be
equita-
Executor
Case, in which
all
Trustee, and
in
in
Executor, and
not as
was so
It
Lands would
the
made
&c.
trust to sell,
decided,
ble Assets
also
the
his heirs, in
were
in a
v.
who are
equitable.
And
Oakley
is
observed,
overthrown,
itself is
devised to
will be
the
or to them
and
&
The descent
*.
b
Powel v. Robins, 7 Ves.
211. and see Charles v. AnCooke
drews, 2 Mod. 151,
v. Parsons, 2 Vern. 429.
c
Edwards and Graves, Hob.
2G5. Alexander v. Lady Gresham, I Lev. 224. Dethick v.
Carravan, 1 Lev. 224. 1 Roll.
Abr. 020. G. 6. Bosvell v. Cojant, Hard. 405,
devised to them,
is
broke,
lost their
Fund.
d
Graves and Powel, 2 Vern.
248. Anon. 2 Vein. 405. see
Clutterbuck v. Smith, Prec.
Ch. 127. Blatch v. Wilder,
1 Atk. 410.
e
Anonymous, 2 Vern. 133.
2 Atkyns, 50.
See to same effect, Buckley
Williams, I Dick. 3S7.
'
v.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
4<H
And
now
legal,
can hardly
Assets would be
Some Judges
if the
that
Law,
at
sell
qua Executor
11
."
payment of
for the
debts, and
it is
the
Assets'; but
it
to a Stranger, the
Estate
is
equitable Assets
makes
to the
subject
Where
there
is
ed to a Person,
a general
for
makes
it
such uses,
in note to
Atk. 484.
Piunket v. Pierson, 2
Atk. 00. and Degg v. Degg,
1
P.
*
Wms.
See
in note 2.
Bayley
v.
bond
intents,
reserv-
and pur-
by Will, or otherwise,
and gives him
net,
the
power given or
see
in-
be-
this
this
dies
Elkins,
as will subject
to his
'
293.
'"
290.
it
49j
tiiusts.
debts'": so
if
Man
pointment of a Reversion
disposition of
it,
yet
makes no
Fee, and
in
it
speeialty Creditors".
Power
Money,
to
Estate with a
charge an
unless executed,
payment of debts";
Sum
of
is
for
where
never supplied.
It has before
been observed*
that
if
there be an
and
may be
is
if a
who had
voluntary appcintment,
and give
it
to
the power'.
in these cases
a person
if
Court will
sells to
prevail
taking under a
another
for a valu-
If the Vendor of an Estate reserves the purchase Money, pa\ able as he shall appoint by an
m See Thompson v. Towne, 2
Vein. 319. S. C. Pre. Cli. 52.
Lassels v. Cornwaltis, 2 Vein.
405. Bullock v. Fladgate, 1
Ves. and Bea. 47S. Barnton v.
Ward, 2 Atk. 172. Trou-liton
v. Trougliton, 3 Atk. 05(. S. (.'.
I Ves. 80.
n
lb.
Ante, p. 40.
Toilet v. Toilet,
Ante, p. 45.
2 P. Wma,
480.
-178.
p
190.
EQUITt JURISDICTION..
4<)f>
between
his Creditors
Money
will, as
Money, but
the Trustee only
but if it be for the payment of
any particular debts, or for the payment of debts
in a Schedule annexed, there the Vendee is obsee to the application of the Purchase
;
liged to see to
the application
of
it
and that
in
x
.
Lands for the payment of Lethe Vendee must see to the discharge of
If a devise be of
gacies,
the Legacies
but
y
;
if
Lands be for
the Purchaser
is
Legacies paid:
he were
liable,in
such
case, to
must
him
first
to see if
be discharged \
Cotterell v.
Hampson, 2
Vern. 413.
Lex Pretoria, MS.
z
See Sugd. Vend, and Purch.
413. who cites J ebb v. Abbott,
v.
an
Collins, ButT.
and
is
290 b .
S. 12.
Skillicorne,
Ambl.
188.
Solley v. Cower, 2 Vern.
61. Ryall v. Kyall, 1 Atk. 60.
a
and
Interest,
equitable
equitable Assets
is
but
mortgaged or
personal,
real or
be Asset-,
paid for
only
at
much
tor so
shall
their
Where
sum
are
th y
Equity
in
the Executor,
law, in
as
by the
pledged
Term
Inheritance in his
Equity
in
is
Assets
is
at
Term
debts, as well as a
Law;
taken
Surplus of the
own name,
his
in
if a
after
debts
Term
will not
It is a rule, (and as
cases merely
to
two funds
we have
of Assets,
seen
only, has a
not confined
Interest in one
person having an
Equity, to
right in
if
that
is
Cole
Lyster
. C.
v.
and in
188. S. P.
h
:j
VOL.
I.
Ante,
See
and
what
in the
'JChaptiian v.
v.
Warden,
rise to
dall,
2 Ch.
|>.
Bond, 1 Vera.
Cas. 152.
202.etc.
Attn:!
.1
Ambl.*391,
Cooper, 8 \ es.
v. Bayne, 9 Ves.
K K
admi-
v.
Tyn-
Aldrich v.
389. Trimmer
-J0 (J.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
498
nistration of Assets,
Marshalling of
termed,
is
Assets.
not
in a
next of kin
in favour of
Court % and
as useful
possesses
for
power
as
Law was to
of
it
have
was
it
to
if
the
Estate,
it
of Assets
as to the Marshalling
p.
If a Bill
is filed
Administration of As-
for the
sets,
that
at
the Bill
is
first
others,
v.
If,
Galton
438:
though
Assets to be marshalled.
itself,
Hancock, 2 Atk.
See
Ambl.
312.
TRUSTS.
sonal Estate,
not necessary to
is
it
4 f'9
another
file
And
first,
'.
ditors.
Where Debts by
Law
Specialty,
which
are a lien at
personal
Assets by
Executors,
in
of the
ease
Lands, the Creditors by simple Contract, are ento stand pro tanlo, in the place of the Cre-
titled
ditors
by Specialty'; and
satisfied
out of the
If a
tates,
to
for that
purpose
14
who
is
11
v.
Upon
'".
Ougier,
12 Ves.
41 G.
Fenhoulet v. Passavant,
Dick. 253. Exparte Hodgson,
2 Dick. 737.
K
See Charles v. Andrews,
2 Mod. 151, 3.
Aldrieh v. Cooper, 8 Ves.
382. '1 hf case of Kobinsen v.
Tonge, respecting Copyholds
mentioned, L P. Wins. (.NO. in
1
Ves. 4(H).
ra
Trimmer
209 j
Bayne, 9 Ves.
and see Austin v, Hatsey,
v.
K K 2
EQUITY JURISDICTION".
500
Debt owing
If there be a
to the
to
be satisfied out of
maybe
let in to
With
n
.
respect to Legatees,
it is,
subjected to Debts
Land
his
devises
to his
Heir
in
Tail,
and gives
Heir
his
means there
Bond
debts,
wise
Fee'
if
by which
It
Land being
It
was
but
it
seems, will
notbe marshalled
Heme
v.
Meyriek,
Wins. 201.
4
See Moyd
IP.
v.
Williams,
Lutkins
v.
in favor of
MS.
362; and
2 Atk.
Roberts,
S. C.
455.
Assets,
501
TRUSTS.
an Executor or
Residuary Legatee
',
Rule,
it is
Legacy
in
Equity stand
in
% and
in his place
for instance,
If,
his
this specific
it e
will
w
.
a Testator
owes a debt
for
real
gaged, Equity
Estate
bound,
Legatee to
which
debt
is
on the
real
order to enlarge the Fund for the paythe Legacies as well as debts x .
in
ment of
some
it was
several Legacies,
charged on the
real Estate,
held, that
pay
to
all
if the
the
if
tate, the
ot*
Land y
Testator gave some Legacies by
And where
Will,
in
in the Codicil,
Davis
tin*
v.
Legacies,
Gardiner,
P,
"Wins. 190.
Bligh
2 P. Wms.
v.
Earl
Darnjey,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
502
that
if
was
come
the surplus, to
in average
the Codicil, to be
in
paid
Estate \
The Court
b
pay cha-
Legacies
rity
for
by
that
Mortmain
was a bequest of the remainder of the Testator's
;
effects,
ment of
d
inpay-
any other part of the perhave a larger fund for the Cha-
Assets,
6
personal Estate
If a
first
debts, before
sonal Estate, to
rity
to be applied
real
and personal
be
first
applied
but
if
must
385
ters,
P.
Arnold
v.
Attorney General
v.
Greaves,
and Attorney
General and Tomkyns, AmbL
Ambl.
158.
TRUSTS.
it,
503
not
is
f
.
place and
come upon
supposed
as
much
to be
it
is
as that the
But Legatees
Mortgagees
By
11
the
same Rule,
if
Legacies,
if
the
Creditors exhaust
the general
But
if
Legacies, and
specific
residue
of his real
by
specialty,
then gives
and he gives
and
the rest
if
the
may
come upon
the resirest
and
residue^.
1
Amesbury v. Brown, 1
Ves.477.
g Haslewood
v. Tope, 3 P.
Wins. 32:}. Hanbv against
Ambl. 173.
'Ambl.
rester
k
Ambl.
v.
128, 9.
104. under
v. Fisher,
S. C.
Dick;
name of Ilamley
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
50-4
Where
to
A. charged upon
real Estate,
The Rule
sets, applies
for the
Court has no
alive,
they
his death.
Nor can
it
therefore,
real
must be a
whose Assets
both the
it
are
remedy against
either, of the
a specialty debt
it
Where
n
.
equitable, though
legal preference
on
yet
if one
Cre-
been partly paid out of such legal Aswhen satisfaction comes to be made out of
ditor has
sets,
m Lacon
v.
1 Vcs. 313,
TRUSTS.
till
there
an
is
equality in satisfaction to
the
all
much
portionable to so
been
as the legal
outofthe
satisfied
Devisee of
ficiency of the
Creditor
legal Asset.-,".
Mortgaged Estate
has,
on
a de-
lias
Formerly,
As-
a Devisee
'',
it
was held,
seems, that
if
Heir
at
to the purpose of
this
Land,
Land would
r
.
an Hares natus*,)
may
stand
in
is
tc*
But
by Personal,
Devisee
n
Morris
and the
v.
Bunk of Eng-
Forrester
Leigh, Ambl.
Leigh
v.
MS.
Residuary
Lord
against
173,
Sed Yid,
r
See note A to Chaplin v.
Chaplin, H P. Wins. 36&
1
Pockley v. Pockley,
Yen.. 37.
Mogg v. Hodges, 2 Yes;.
'
o3.
EQUITY JURISDICTION",
50(5
against specific
Creditors
much
or general Legatees,
less
v
.
must take
it
cum
De-
Estate, the
onere,
Mortgage
w
.
Bona Paraphernalia
Wife's
separate Estate",)
in favor of Creditors
Heir.
(unless purchased
They
y
;
are liable
for
out of
debts
z
.
A Widow,
has a
Questions as to what
an Advancement
is
fre-
79.
v. Tipping, 1 Peer
730. Snelson v. Corbet,
3 Atk. 369.
Tipping
Wms.
a
Probe rt
v.
Morgan, 1 Atk.
Burton
Wms.
79.
v. Pierpoint,
P..
trusts.
By
provided,
his
507
Heir
at
2. c.
10.)
it
is
that
portion
equal to the distributive shares of the other children, shall participate with
but
if
to their Shares,
make
then
it
so,
arise
was
in a great
As
or gifts
made by
affect her.
Widow's
Estate,
If the Mother,
Widow, advances
therefore, being a
the
The
what he received
Hotchpot
.
when
tion,
or
to
that purpose,
for
Bond
Edwards v. Freeman, 2 P.
W.449. Holt v. Frederick, 2
P. Wins. 358.
c
Holt v. Frederick, 2 P.
356,
Wms.
EQUITY JURISDICTION".
08
had a right
to all,
spiritual
in favor
ceeded
to
order
distribution
as
the
make
was agreeable
which
equal,
often
as
to
the civil
with Lands
f
.
The
first, it
intention of
into consideration,
it
of the Children
there
that
who have
received a portion or
up
vanced but
in part,
in that case,
is
may be some
much
as to
make
allowed so
make his share equal to that of the other ChilThe Statute takes nothing away that has
dren.
to
been given to any of the Children, however unequal that may have been. How much soever
that
may exceed
See Hughes
Cart. 120.
1
Edwanls
anr]
Lev. 233.
v.
Freeman, 2 P.
Wins. 441,2.
Humphrey
459.
v.
TRUSTS.
Estate
may,
by the Intestate
left
if
he pleases, keep
509
all
it.
he
if
is
'InM
not con-
tented, but
into
manifestly seems to be
tin-
equality*.
may
tate,
Will,
may
has]
It
Child by
provision for a
the Testator
his Children.
all
tin-
(for
personal
intestate)
die
is
C
Es-
not
younger Child,
is
-a.
pot.
Any Land
however given,
intestate,
Hotchpot
is
'.
P.
P.
Freeman
Wms.
Iliune
455
Wms. 441.
Annnnd
Vem. 34b.
v.
v.
Vem.
Pla
Ilonevwood,
if
2 P. Wms. 27
'
443.
"lb. 439, 443,
but
181. and
Lands of
and
3 Atk.
Stanl
EQUITY JURISDICTION".
510
orphanage
in bar of the
part,
it
There are
may be made by
which
and
it
all
of them.
contingent
is
is
and where-
child
may
may
and therefore
make use
was proper
it
Provision
Child
is
out of
an
good consideration,
v.
Lands
settled
2 P. Wms.
274.
D
Edwards
Wms.
440.
v.
an
upon a younger
Belitha,
is
Legislature to
the
of general
for
Freeman, 2 P
to
So, an
commence
lb. p. 444,
lb. 440.
aftes
611
TIVUSTS.
his death,
is fin
vancemeni pro
Where
on
tanto, as
makes
a Father
his Marriage,
may be valued 4
it
all
a Provision for
Son
and
is
it is
to be valued
If
Money
and brought
in
advancement
life
vancement, pro
may make a
tanlo,
and
distribution,
it
is
it is
an ad-
Money
if
if
the con-
be refunded
shall
share,
only, that
8
.
he has received
in
If a Child or
Father's
advancement'.
Children are advanced in the
life
The ground
of which
is,
Father's
the
partly,
on the
hand".
difficulty
Edwards
Wras.
r
44-2,
v.
Freeman, 2 P.
444.
Weyland
v.
Weyland, 2
Atk. 035.
Edwards
Wms.
Edwards,
v.
Fawkener
v.
3 Atk.
Watts,
Aik.
Freeman, 2 P.
440, 448.
Hearne v. Barber, 3 Atk.
213.
u
Harvey v. Desbouverie,
For. 135. and see 1 Vein. 8<J.
1
Hume
451. Elliot
Chace
v. Ijox,
Eq. Ca. Abr.
154, 5. where a certificate is
given at length of the cu&of London, Cleaver v.
torn
Spurling,
2 P. Wmi. 020.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
512
know what
Declaration will
its
orphan-
vancement
be read.
in
may
first
Husband,
Father advances
If a
part,
one
of' his
Children in
claiming a distributive
Hotchpot what
But Grand-children,
it
must bring
had received x
into
entitled to a
Where an Heir
settled
share,
their Father
Custom of London
this
will
not
by the Will
the Heir at
It
is
however
Elliot
v.
clear,
Son
Collier,
is
Fowke
settled,
Hotchpot any
to bring into
2 Ves.
v.
Hunt, 1 Vera.
397.
Fawkener v. Watts,
407.
x
provision to
16.
w
Any Land
be so\
Law
privileged
is
to
Atk.
Proud
Wms.
500.
v.
Turner,
2 P.
z
Or money to purchase a
commission, Heame v. Barber,
3 Atk. 213.
2 P. Wms. 440.
TRUSTS.
advancement
office, though
place
to
at will, as a
Gentleman Pensioner*
and so
nuity
grant
an Annuity
is
is
or
Money
an advancement,
';
if it
tlie
pay-
at the
is
or
ments received,
/<r,
Army',
or a commission in the
'*,
An
purchase a Commission,
to
513
Freeman
to a
Dough*
vancement
apprentice
8
,
amount,
Money
in
it
are given,
to
put a Son
out
or sets
vancement.
advanced
not an ad-
Father gives
If the
is
is
at
an advancement
but
if
petty
sums
times, by a Father to a
different
way
made by
Freeman
lb. p. 51.
^Hume
v.
VOL.
I.
Edwards, 3 Atk.
Vern. 90.
g Sed qiur.
see Norton v.
Norton, 3 P. Wins. 317. in
note O.
h
Morns v. Burroughs, 1
Atk. 402,3. Norton v. Norton,
3 P. Wins. 317. in note.
L L
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
514
and not
Hotchpot
into
as a gift to
be brought
So Aliment
k
.
,n
versity, or in travelling.,
is
advance
Uni-
not considered as an
Money
his
an advancement
11
laid
is
Questions of
advancement
can
arise
only
and a
Widow p
is entitled to
or Sister
a share
a Brother
Hume
v.
Edward;?, 3 Atk.
Ambl. 189.
S. C.
3 Atk. 527.
v. Freeman, 2 P.
Edwards
"Wrns.
4oG.
Elliot v.
Collier,
1 Ves. 15.
m 3 P. Wrns. 317. in note.
n
528.
personal Es-
full
Elliot v, Collyer,
3 Atk.
154.
q
135.
Wrns. 124.
r
Lutwyche
For.27G.
v.
Lutwyche,
515
TRUSTS.
i-
been
much
gives
less
of their personal
tom.
disposing
by the Cus-
If the
position; but
if
it
is dis-
dis-
Customary
which he
of
Estate, unfettered
posed of by Will,
to
power
dies intestate,
is
distributable accord-
distributable according
is
And though
City, and
lives
his Estate
is
in
London
is
entitled to a Share
in part,
leaves the
the
his
of
dies,
ced
Freeman
makes
marries, and
An
is
London advan-
is
Hotchpot".
If a
Man
marries an orphan
who
dies
under
unless he
is
11 Geo. 1.
Staplcton
Vera. \'-i'2.
5
Rutter
WeWb
loses
180.
110.
Husband 7
"
v.
Sherard, 1
'
v.
Rutter, 1 Vera.
v.
Webb, 2 Vein.
Fane
v.
Beuch, 2 Vera.
231.
Touke
v.
Lewen,
Vera,
Hewlett,
Vein.
88.
'
354.
Foden
v.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
3l(>
Money
phan,
only
by an Or-
will
x
.
By
most
re-
don, but
is
regards the
different in
Widow
The widow
is
some
points, as in
intestate.
paraphernalia
what
also
and
to her
of the Intestate
By
2
.
who
If
b
,
in
is
Fee or
in Tail
divested of
any question
all
1
,
inherits
or even in
claim to a
filial
Law
c
.
that principality
The
within
d
.
situated,
x
Beck ford v. Beckford, 1
Vern. 340.
y Swinb. p. 6. s. 9. Toller's
Law of Executors, 318.
* 2 Bl.
Com. 519. 4 Burn.
Eccl. Law, 398. Toller's Law
of Executors, 319.
ler
Vern. 375.
d
Toller's Law of Executor*
320. 7 and 8 Wil. 3. c. 38.
TRUSTS.
j 17
may be
Waiter Walker,
Statute of Janus
tin
by
*.
Statute, of Distributions
penned
prima,
is
f
;
drawn,
said,
is
it
famous Civilian
by Sir
and
,)
tha
Second'
'',
is
settled
decisions.
to
Law g
By the
.
if after
the
and
Sister
their
By
Common Law,
the
administer, but
nary to grant
the 21 Hen.
was
it
entitled
to
and
v.
v.
(elf,
Bempde
v.
Johnstone, 3
I<)s.
22 and
if
Ch.
2.
10.
this injustice
but.
f
Stanley v. Stanley, 1 Atk.
457; and see Edwards and
Freeman. S P. Win-. 114.
Lloyd v. Tench, 2 Ves. 214;
and we Wentney \. Petty,
Pr.r. (h.
"
2-'}
to
the surplus
5 Ves. 700.
Ves.
Then came
pleased.
Pipon
Burn
urn
to
in
8.
was
'.
whom he
to
it
WJ.
krlvuav
Wins. 34
I.
v.
Kelvwav, 2 P.
Rep.
S. C. Gilbert
MS
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
Wife
k
.
An
tator
Executor derives
;
his
Power from
them
his Tesl
and one of
Though
Interest
is
Executors or Administrators
and
holds
this
all
if
but
there
though not
Where
there
is
making him
Hudson
Hudson
v.
Hudson,
Atk.
461.
m Hudson
v.
127. Adams
2 Vern. 514.
Hudson, For.
Buckland,
v.
as a
Edwards
v. Freeman, 2 P.
441. and vid. note D.
to Davers v. Dewey, 3 P. Wms.
49. See also Hart and King in
Exchequer, Trin. 6 Geo. 1.
1720. MS.
Earl of Winchelsea v. Norcliffe, 1 Vern. 403. Wallis v.
Hodson, 2 Atk. 116. Palmer
52.
Wms.
v.
v.
v.
TRUSTS.
The
sig
'.
Two
Nephew and
Aunts, a
If there be an Uncle,
Child,
all
a Niece,
take
'.
A Nephew
by
a Brother,
and a
Nephew by
Nephew by
a deceased
Ne-
Brother, and
If there
1
.
Thomas
Kctteriche,
v.
Ves. 333.
Mcntiipy v.
Ch. 593. Lloyd
Ves. 215.
Durant
Atk. 455.
1
Petit,
v.
Prec.
Tench, 2
Prestwood, 1
Llovd v. Tench,
2 Ves. 213. Page v. Cook,
mentioned 2 Ves. '214. contra
1 Domat Civil I. aw 666.
u
v.
Bowers v. Littlewood, 1 P.
Wins. 593; and see Brecton v.
Darkin, 2 V'ern. 108. Maw v.
Harding, 2 Vera. 233.
Grand-
T
Stanley v. Stanley, 1 Atk.
45G. Davers v. Dewes, 1 P.
Wms.
215.
1 P.
Lloyd \. Tench,
55.
Bowers v. Littlewood,
Wms. 595.
Stanley v. Stanley,
456. Davers v. Dewes,
w
Atk.
1
P,
50. Lloyd v. Tench,
2 Ves. 215. Bowers v. Little-
Wms.
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
520
son,
and a Brother or
Daughter, the
Sister's
his
effects
devolve on
the King,
who
y Pitt's
Case,l P.
END
Wms.
01
25.
" See
2 Black.
Dougl. 542.
Com. 505.
uc soun
AA
^
rk
II
iii