« AnteriorContinua »
ROSS v. SHERER and others.
THE Plaintiff filed his Bill against Husband and Wife, and the Trustees, to her separate use, alleging an interest by the Wife's appointment, and praying an Injunction to restrain the Transfer of the Trust Stock.
1821. 15th Jan.
The Bank hav
ing notice of a Bill, refused to permit a Transfer of Stock, though Ordered, that no Injunction. they should per
The Plaintiff never moved for the Injunction; but the Bank, having notice of the Bill, refused to permit the Transfer. The present application by the Defendants, mit the Transfer who had some time since put in their Answer, was, that the Bank might be ordered to permit the Transfer.
The Vice-Chancellor made an Order that the Bank of England should permit the Transfer at any time after a certain day named, unless in the mean time the Plaintiff obtained an Injunction.
on a certain day, unless Plaintiff obtained Injunction in the mean time.
1821. 16 Jan.
SMITH in re HAY.
If Managing THE question in this case was, whether the joint Estate should prove against the separate Estate.
out Monies, and conceals the fact,
or disguises it in the Partnership
may be made
The VICE-CHANCELLOR :
If one Partner be intrusted with the entire management Books, this is of the Partnership Concern, and he withdraws Monies Fraud, and proof for his separate use, which he duly and openly enters in against the Se- the Partnership Books, this is not a fraud which will entitle the joint Estate to prove against the Separate ;parate Estate. Otherwise, if the it would be otherwise, if by the entries in the Books transaction is he disguises the transaction, or wholly omits and duly entered in conceals it.
1821. 17th Jan.
ROBINSON v. RIDLEY.
In estimating A SALE of an Estate made to the Solicitor in the lasting Improve- Cause was sought to be avoided.—He had pulled down a part of the Buildings and erected new ones.
ments, old Build
ings pulled down, if incapable of
repair, to be
valued as old
The Vice Chancellor ordered that his Improvements should be valued, and the Estate put up for Re-sale at Materials only. the improved value, and that he should be held to his. bargain if no higher bidder; and declared, that in estimating the Improvements the old Buildings, if incapable of repair, should be valued as old materials; but otherwise as buildings standing.
WHITCOMB v. FOLEY.
BILL by Vendor for specific Performance.
The common Order of reference to the Master was made as to title, and his report was in favour of the Vendor. The Defendant took exceptions, which were heard before the Vice-Chancellor, and allowed.
The present application was on a Motion by the Defendant to dismiss the Vendor's Bill, with Costs.
The Vice-Chancellor ruled, that it was a proper case for further Directions by Motion, and made the Order accordingly.
1821. 23d Jan.
tions by Motion,
when reference to Master is made
FENNER v. TAYLOR.
1821. 26th Jan.
Where one Residuary Legatee is Plaintiff, and the other Defennot tax Costs, as dant, Court will
THE Plaintiff, one of two residuary Legatees, filed this Bill for an Account. The other residuary Legatee was Defendant: and now upon winding up the cause, on further Directions, the question was, Whether the Court should order Costs of Plaintiff and Defendant, residuary Legatee, as between Solicitor and Client, the between Solicitor Defendant not consenting thereto. After inquiry as and Client,withto the Practice, the Vice-Chancellor held, that Costs out Consent. could not be so ordered without the consent of the
other residuary Legatee, the Defendant.
HACHETT v. PATTLE.
By terms of THE late Mr. Pattle purchased a Rente viagere for French Contract, Two Lives, one of which Lives was the Plaintiff's Wife; Rentes viageres, and in the Contract it was stated that she was to hold for two Lives in succession, were
after death of
first Life pay
during her Life, for her own benefit, and that Mr. Pattle should have power, after her death, to dispose of the Interest during the surviving Life, by his Will; and the able with all ar- Contract provided that after the death of the first Life, rears to Survi- the growing Payments, as well as all Arrears, were to The Re- be paid to the second Taker.
presentative of first Life relieved against
the loss of Ar
Mr. Pattle, by his Will, directed another Rente viagere to be purchased for Two Lives, one of which was rears occasioned to be the Plaintiff's Wife, who was to enjoy it for her by the Revolution. own benefit for her Life, with remainder over. This
Contract was in the same form as the first.
The Rentes viageres ceased to be paid in consequence of the Revolution in France, and Mrs. Hachett died before the Peace of 1815; and the question was, whether the Arrears during her Life, which were recovered in consequence of the Treaty of 1815, were to belong to her Representative, or to the Party entitled after her Death.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR :
The terms of the Contract, as to the payment of the Arrears to the surviving Life, were to be considered as applicable only to such Arrears as resulted from the mode adopted by the French Government; but if it could be otherwise considered, he was of opinion that Mrs. Hachett's Representative had a right to be relieved against the literal expression, in respect of the accident
of the Revolution, which had occasioned the Arrears, and against which no diligence or attention on her part could guard.
Mr. Lomar for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Horne, and Mr. Bligh, for the Defendant.
BRAY v. FROMONT and others.
THE three Defendants worked a Coach from London
to Bath, each finding Horses for certain stages.
Smith, one of the Defendants, employed the Plaintiff in his Share, but
to provide Horses for a part of his distance.
The present Bill was for an Account, and payment of a proportionate share of Profits.
The Vice-Chancellor held, that the Plaintiff, claiming under Smith, must be subject to the Account between Smith and the other Defendants, and could claim payment only out of any Balance due to Smith; but that it would be otherwise if the Co-Defendants had accepted him in the Concern in lieu of Smith.
cannot make him a Partner.
RAMSBOTTOM v. PARKER.
THIS was a Bill by the Assignees in Bankruptcy of Penfold and Springett, late Bankers at Maidstone, to avoid a Contract of dissolution of Partnership, made nearly Two Years before the Bankruptcy, with the Defendant, upon the ground that it was oppressive, and that improper advantage was taken by the Defendant
1821. 8th Feb.
To form a Case for Relief
on the ground of Oppression on the one side, and Distress on the other, the dis
advantage of the
Bargain must be within the view of the Parties.