tine Cornell University
other
heirs.
man,
deceased,
said marriage was
 
and
lawful
sons,
in
have
been made defendants ; and the putting them to answer the
bill and to
to
anj'
interest
sustain
;
estate, any
selling an
the
other,
against
Admiral
Berkelej',
certain
interest.
object
or
consent.
Thej-
sort of
condition.
There
is
a
distinction
between
a
bill
to
witness, and in aid
of
bill
to examine de bene esse. In opposition to this are Parry v.
Rogers,^
upon
was held
These cases really
real interest
Lord
Chancellor
referred
to
something
case of a
and
the
first
tenant
same
title.
Terwit
v.
Gresham
All these parties are
verj'
not have been filed till after the
d^ath of Hupsman.
every
person
having
a
legal
to pre-
In
Smith
V.
The
Attorney
General
esse
proceed
itself
nat-
vested
cannot bring
the matter
into immediate
purchasers
The object
for any other
strictness
of
the
is necessary
;
immediate and in possession.
plaintiff,
but
are
veyance.
In
contest. The ground
that it
inconvenience,
mis-
chief,
and
failure
of
justice
are
all
are no
also
preserve evidence
than
the
and
where nothing
evidence,
to
person
entitled
strict
remainder-man
court is called
doctrine.
No
difHculty
is
alleged
of that
celebrated
a marriage de
the
means
very
difficult
to
conceive
v.
The
Attorney
General
no in-
hopeless
state,
any
interest
in
the
his
say
he
never
liked
like
equity,
ancestor,
bill, or the heir apparent in the case put,
yet
perpetuate.
the
contract,
and
with
reference to that they have a right to perpetuate testimony,
though
they
could
not
It
appears,
therefore,
that,
unless
there
are
grounds
these
defendants
interest
is
exactly
of
because
posterior.
Next,
these
defendants
contended,
to
say
tenant
of
it
inconvenient
to
general
there must be a
the
doubt
to
cross-examine,
justice
opportunity
of
decid-
is
thus, for it
agree to the
vexed
by
it,
independent
defend
himself
Ca.
Ab.
and
an
extract
from
that
case
in
the
Register's
Book,
this
point
judges
upon
it.
The
result
ing a
reversion where
establish a principle
person,
the defendant,
of
a
good
deal
of
consideration
a principle
given
in the printed books, it seems to me that, independent of the cir-
cumstance
of
future in enjoj-ment,
of
the
to it
Berkeley
am
much
struck
M'ith
all the circumstances
and it
witnesses
was
either
As a circumstance
course it
But
to
perpetuate
testimony.
not exert
himself for
own
to the
maintained against persons who have an inter-
est of a pecuniary value, which will enable them to aid those who stand
in the
20, 21,
by
Robert
Allan,
issue
issue. James
Robert Allan,
being both of
in
is
the
ancestor, who may
by a flue
or
the
nugatoiy
tenant
in
tail
jointly
with
his
issue,
asserting
interest
which
descent
as
an
heir
at
whom
thej'
claim
perhaps
that
heirs
in
tail.
Tliey
are
not
remainder-men,
but
supposed to
suit.
One
such
how
minute
the
the
enjojment
remote and
the party has
the case of a
the extent even of an
admitted
that,
if the part}' and ever}^ witness could not live an hour, j'et
the title of
repelled, and that bill was
repelled
fee-simple estate
could not
support this
heir
male
apparent
in tail
of
that
power,
and
did
tlie
as having the
are
time being himself,
circumstances
of
of the
whole estate.
bill which must
ANDEEWS
V.
PALMER.
Befoee
of
it
with-
I
Angell, by his
estates, gave
Esquire,
ever, all his lands and estates,
both real and
be
thereafter
; and if
or the first
were
no
male
the
purchaser
at
Crowhurst,
but
the
heir
male
of
in
possession,
prove,
sons now
tiff
could
might
be
the
circumstances
by
of such a bill
was therefore allowed
to stand over
for
a
commission
to
ex-
entitled
an
to
be
reasoning
which
by the plaintiff.^
sought by
commission to
Newland's.
5
Mitf.
41
aud
121.
appeared
to
me
bill
of an immediate
directed the
proposition.
of
wit-
the
had done
to this view
of the case
exception, rather
cited.
pretended
those witnesses for
of justice,
or even of convenience to the party plaintiff' in such a
reason
of justice,
or even of convenience to the party plaintiff' in such a
bill,
requires
before
benefit
is injustice
that
a
bill
for
a
commission
to
also
bj-
the
Lord
Chan-
cellor
upon a re-hearing, that such a bill would lie before an action
actuallj'
his bill
respect to
The
principle
Term,
1840 :
notice
of
filed to perpetuate
contempt, and
was brought
to
have
by the
gave the plaintiff
Attornej'-General,
moved
that
the
depo-
Angell
v.
Angell
this
Court
on
the
simply
directing
simply
ex-
ercising
the
suit merely
value
or
admissibility
trial.'
Order.
cause, be
officers
do
attend
with
sex,
time as
certain information at
said
Attorney-General
are
J.
Richardson,
said
examiner,
is
to
be
said
proceedings,
interrogatories,
they can.
following
note
stat.
1 &
2
Vict.
(deceased) was seised
by an indenture of the
26th
of
September,
1853,
attested by
the
notice of
Richard Roupell
, who
claimed
the
estate
Roupell.
The
plaintiffs
thereupon
there
were
several
other
1
the
plaintiffs
thereunder,
upon
the
entered
into
possession,
R.
P.
Roupell
treated
him
admit,
estate,
she
executed
tlie
indenture
1853,
par-
ticulars
as
this de-
and
strained, by
commencing
or
of
matters
in-
tends
out
possession
may
in
order
to
frustrate
the
design
into
pos-
owner of
rule
were
in
possession
as
purchasers of this estate, applied to the case of a mort-
gagee. A mortgagee can
the
cognizance
of
the
Court
the
mortgagee obtained a
been enrolled
expii-cd.
though
the
bill
perform
the
double
function
bill
of
discovery.
I
do
not
costs
own witnesses
; but even then,
Here the defendant has thought fit to answer all the
matters
the original bill ; it is then re-amended, and the defendant
is called
upon to
This
sin-
gularitj-
then
takes
deed
is
this be-
it
depended
upon you, the plain-
tiffs, as j'ou yourselves have shown, to bring question in dispute
before a
the plaintiffs having
so does
not alter the law on the subject, and that it was
just as competent
at
least
cannot
plead
ignorance
of the law as a justification for his acts. That being
so, I think
in the first instance,
rule of
you
undoubtedly
true
that
shortly
this
a
support
of
the
exceptions,
argued
taken,
plaintiffs, having
issue
though
it
may
praj'
be made."
as
distinguished from
other bills, as thus defined by Lord Eedesdale ; and I am
of opinion
bill
tion
enable the plaintiff in
done
in
so
not
necessary
perpetuate
defined, as I have
cited.
then in force,
whole case
relief
than the
v. Fitzhar-
in
any
court
would
be
a
good
ground
from
the
testimony,
when,
if
the
witness
Earl of
plaintiff, and
on con-
appears
"What is
he may
mat-
bill.
Bej'ond
and
Anon.'
It
is
bill. Unless the right
his bill
the plaintiff in his
inquirj' or
ant
in
like
to be paid
question, prevented
as in an
ordinary case, be
properly
brought
forward
by
defendants,
were not heard.
The Master of the Rolls. This case is very singular in its
cir-
cumstances,
a
plea
to
that, by reason of
thej' are not
could
and was
ing that the eldest
Scotch
marriage,
claimed the estate,
more clear
the
gave
directions
to examine
away, and
had caused
suing on
behalf of
recentl}- the
the
superintendence
of
appointed
courts baron,
and prajdng
for an
using the soil of
that a
considerable time
the
plaintiff's
evidence
in
the onlj- persons
of being lost;
such
testi-
supporting,
in
litigation
in
that
amine witnesses
Peek
v.
Earl
answer
taken in this suit. Moreover
the
plaintiff
could
nature of
ants of
the manor
bill that
Earl Spencer.
It is
no objection
evidence.
The
present
defendant
v.
any of
these cases the plaintiff will lose the benefit of this evi-
dence.
That
by
Lord
Eedesdale,^
is
confined
to
the
case of the plaintiff himself, having no present right of action or
suit,
is
explained by Mr. Jeremy's note, and is clearly pointed out
in Stor3''s
Eq. PI.',
clusively
the
adverse
which
cannot
be
right,
this
to
perpetuate
testimony
undisturbed
possession.
supported,
so
far
as
Spencer. It
the purpose of discovery,
interrogating
be immediately investigated
is contended
the matter is in the course of investigation in a
suit, that
removes the
which
the
defendant
a course
I do
that he
lie.
present judicial
plaintiff's title might be lost
by the
examination
de
bene
esse
with
costs.
suggesting
an
the
bOl.
the
a
the lord and the several
tenants was
to be
difficulty upon the lord
of
settling
Court
thereby
informed
and
was
in
verdicts to
of his
brother of
Elizabeth, Duchess of Albemarle, the widow of Duke
Christopher, who
of
Mountague,
life
of
the
Court
of
Queen's
Bench
of Sir
Sir Walter Clarges
on
the
demise
of
of
Maj-,
1703,
Dulie Christo-
of
the
verdicts.
Notwithstanding
trials, Sherwin
to
grant
respondents
extinguished;
and
to
that
end,
that
a
perpetual
injunction
paternal or
II.,
and
King
William
restrain
their
right,
wisdom
of
limits to such prosecutions,
was highlj'
reason
in
this
case
by
sought
for
ordered
and
adjudged
to stay the proceedings
them, upon the
upon
the
alleged
Albermarle.*
MAYOR
OF
YORK
v.
PILKINGTON
right of
whether the
general
issue
has
right. In
for sixpence
Whitechapel
Talbot
of opinion
Here are two causes o
demurrer,
is
not
because
they
that
there
privity between
can
Ch.
530,
Bush
v.
posses-
he cannot, bj- one or two
actions at
manors and their tenants, and
between tenants
of one
would
between
the
the plaintiffs
there were in possession of the right of fishing upon the
river Ouse,
constantly
question,
to
the
from Edinburgh, with a view to sale, a partj', without
prejudice to the injunction. He
said the
to
the
bill
was
to
Court
as
not long
ago, upon
Bolton and
an
act
lOOZ. per
acre for
Howden's land
the
5,000/. ;
and
be
declared
that
the
5000/.
demurrer
pro
turpi
causa,
after
a
of the bond. In Gray v. Mathias,^ a bill was
filed
paper, and was
defence against
Byne v. Vivian,^
volume of Vesey,"
do not appear
appear
upon
the
such
as
the
mode
When the same case came before
Lord
opinion
the
preceding
variance between the
the
jurisdiction
to
partner
to
have
a
bill
delivered
up
which
had
as
of
Vesey,'
partnership,
and,
that case, there
could be no
Court.
So,
in
Ware
the origin of the
°
contemplation of bankruptcy, and
supposed to be due, but
a
sum
secu-
rity.
and manj' of
case has no applica-
of cases gen-
upon the face of
annuity
becomes
might
be
proved
Chastel, re-
reported in a
appear upon the face
this
jmisdiction
has
case
referred
deciding
and Lord
and
in
Ware
v.
Horwood
inferentiaUy,
only remains to
the plaintifi"s,
equity,
in
for
equitable
interfer-
ence
question,
but,
by
per-
afford to
the parties
assuming
the
defendants,
amount-
ing
in
the
whole
to
seventj'-seven.
The
notices
the
time
for
fendant, whether each
cannot be supported,
The Court will
are frequent where, on
the
the decision
and those
this Court
will have
bills against
necessary
to
expense
to
him.
come
to
persons alleged
to be
infringing, and
It
would
Each
one
infringer
your charge at once."
against every
separate infringer.
the course taken is
to be bound
in
as a
Court has, upon
that, because
I
am
not
going
to
circumstances
may
exist.
defendants
shall
each
defendant
: first,
stay of proceedings at
:
taking
proceedings at law or in equitj' against a great number of
per-
sons
infringing
the wa^'
to
deprive
the
plaintiff
is
not
the
state
have come too soon.
to
proceedings.''
SHEFFIELD
WATERWORKS
v.
YEOMANS.
to the
defendant, John
Court inter-
them taxed,
proceedings would
to
costs
were
made
absolute
by
Equity
Jurisprudence.^
Mr.
Yeomans.
Mr.
Baily,
de-
defendants on two
char-
acter
proved, and
demurrer.
Perhaps,
strictly
as the rights
The rights of the
of
of the common-law
same state of
custody of
a number
a
a number of persons
the
documents
where
judgment
was
entered
course
analogy, at
peace, for
occasioned,
claims
of
all
the
parties
depend.
posed
decided
upon
demurrer,
whether
on
of
bill, it would
not be a
upon
the
demurrer.
I
agree,
however,
admitted by the
Brown
said common,
predecessors
had
intended
the plaintiff
two only
uncertain.
How
are
the
costs
nature of a bill
were by con-
appealed from
seems
to
have
way
ascertained.
Now,
nobody
of
owners
of
a
small
tenement,
had been
a survey
who
is
lord
and
make
it
available
for
these
purposes
of the Rolls.
advertisements to be issued
any mod-
judgment below
thereof
and
sale,
were
irregu-
lar,
and
under
it.
proceedings,
through
an
was sufficient
that
sale, and
though they had
to
a
court
of
principles of
challenged, when he will be in time to bring forward
his
defence.
rule,
in
many
to disclaim or to litigate the
matter in
advance. Courts
are merelj' speculative
of
lands
the
In this case,
other
proceedings
plaintiff's
the rule. It
the assess-
ment, and the plaintiff might rest in perfect safet}'. But the 45th
section of
the charter
convey-
ance
executed
under
the
the
recover
such
^
impeached
by
proof
father
only
heirs-at-law.
That
of
the
said farm.
ant,
Dewey,
had
commenced
At
a
were
in
possession
the
premises,
a sheriff
case from
is
from
it
it can
that
the
purchaser
and
mortgagors. It
of
have
that strengthens
mortgagors,
at
and up to the
to any
title.
would
afford
no
of resorting
remove a cloud from their title. But when they have
the
right
to
immediate
possession,
the
plaintiff's, that
the mortgage title
might bar the
against
them
principles
of
equity
jurisdiction
other
instruments
affecting
classes of cases,
was
Lough-
V.
Holland,'
in
v.
White,^
took
the
apparent
estate is or maj-
a
perfect
legal
defence.
as the
In
1797,
three
the
defence
was
v.
Vivian,
we
should
be
enrolled
case
was
defective,
and
the
annuity
void.
Mansfield,
for
the
defendant,
insisted
that
the
Court
ought
not
to
entertain
jurisdiction,
for
the
reason
1
Eyan
v.
Mackmath,
3
Bro.
estate. He
be
disposed
law. The
shall not
retain the
the
two
and
made
a
Lord
Loughborough
v.
Vivian
and
Byne
v.
Potter.
not, is now
the
doctrine
advanced
in
Byne
v.
Vivian
and
evidence.
therefore, in which
cloud
upon
mere
the
interposition
the
grantor
is
shown
the previous deeds, is
would
title. But suppose, in tracing back
the
title
grantor is found who was, at the time
of
be
how
far
back
it
immediate
possession of the
facts would be
maj' be exclusive,
to
entire
farm
the judgment should be
does not show, in other words,
that
the
demurrer
does
not
admit
transfer
agent
1853,
on
old
certificates
which
of
that such firm
They all claim rights
;
of
these
fraudu-
lentlj'
Court, and others
the certifi-
cates may
en-
joined
from
suing
demurrer
and
dismissing
the
complaint
the
shareholders
are
entitled
to
relief
in
Haven Eailroad Company
in the
construction and
company, issued
$2,000,000,
being
made
entirely unaffected by them.^
creation of law, the
which enabled
directors, as
the spher of its powers and duties. It had therefore
the rights
or declaration
of trust,
which each
numerous
equitable
interests
carved
of suits,
established
capable of
or interest of the
on the mere
lapse
of
it is
doctrine now is, that
title or
them.
re-
pelled
by
showing
that
the
certificate
does
not
represent
the
actual
stock
of the
That
depression
in an
against any
must remain in such a condition of insecurity and doubt,
and
must
shares of
stock are
a description
of property
In applying
these remedies
sustaining
the
present
suit
in
regard
to
the
proper
line
of
duty
reason unerringlj' indicates the
be
heard
be
in.-"
In
law,
with
the
and parties
in one
justice.
It
is
certainly
impossible
a discov-
the
Lord
Chancellor
observing
to
this
case
rights
might
rights
of
no
other
person
could
of the
one
all the
jointly in each act.
in re-
against
the
of it is of
be found,
equity when the
equitable character, and
on
the
one
to bring the
tion
on
the
nature,
given at large
invalid certificates
alone. Being
same principles
defendants,
from
time
to
time,
to
merchandise,
and
paid
divers
and became
upon
promissory
notes
in-
dorsed
to
the
sat-
isfactory,
to
persons
for
whom
they
effected
such
such
dealings
with
the
defendants
cannot
obtain
and cannot
respecting
of the
general
demurrer
to
the
discovery
and
re-
lief.
Mr.
Mansfield
but of
at
the
suit
which
this
plaintiff,
applications
amicable way, but insisted, then,
that the
plaintiff had
Chief Baron Ej're said it
was a verj- un-
a
series
had
elapsed.
This
there
is
no
sum
sum
was
Mundy
therefore,
in
the
money,
he does not go on to allege that, upon the effect of the
whole,
due upon
of
a
universal
custom,
no manner of difficulty in the proof: so that, if
an
to
this
particular
ment,
the
proof
al-
legation
It
to
the
plaintiff,
that
de-
mands,
forming
the
considered
I hesitate excessively
a bill
:
a commission
1st
to the
a
balance
35/.
per
the goods
The defendants, Johnston
repajTnentof money,
; demurred
to
the
bill,
and
the
sold,
an account.
for relief
will not
Before Alexander,
afterwards
of altogether
will
interfere,
allega-
they be true, are capable of proof, and maj' be
rendered available to the
a
judge's
order.
Mr.
an
agent
is
that
purpose.
Lord
Chief
Baron
Alexander.
that
fact
alone
is
sufficient
to
equity for
which
cannot
fairly
be
equity
description
en-
objected
that
the
for
is
the bill. That is
not the case here
I feel no doubt that the
demurrer in this
particular also should
account at
April,
1829,
a
the bank,
the
respondents
for
;
be
decreed
of the
separate
account
of
the
appellant
;
in
answer
to
the
Statute
of
and partly
pay interest on the deposit.
It was the duty
calculate
the
and to preserve
all vouchers and
with
relation
more
complex
of them is a
fit sub-
ject for a bill in equity, not only bj' reason ofthe admitted concurrentjuris-
diction
of account, but
is of monej-s received
own knowledge,
and the
of Equity,
bj- its
adopted by
this House
Vale
Railway
Com-
he might support a suit at law, a
court
oflaw
or
so
ofequity, and bj'
degrees courts of
recognized
in
in
Adlej'
v.
complicated,
and
consists
of
equit_y
nevertheless
has
concurrent
jurisdiction,
and
ar(5
cases
has
always
jurisdiction
be-
the
with any prop-
he engages
in a
that has
of
has no apphcation
of equitj'
well
known
or
discussion at this
time. But as they have been, I will refer to one or
two
doctrine
in
a
fallacy.
be
complex
result
of
the
facts
a
merely
legal
right,
obtained that, cannot
at law, a
of their
;
partj'
has
a
right
to
his
fiduciary
character.
But
said, those
been
guilty
That
unnecessarj- to reason
that
6501. on account of the plaintiff, the particulars Of which
would
appear
from
betweeh
the
partner were
very nurnerous
on
railwaj-
shares
belonging
The bill charged
that an account
as to
plaintiff
other,
of the
properlj-
only,
shown
before
to a reference,
remain any protection against suits in
equity to parties
until he has seen
not
v. Johnston,
which was
agenc}'
account
thi'oughout ;
been agent
that the bill could
v.
Rook,*
and
Earl
Ranelagh
V.
Hayes.
The
to sue in equitj-, founded
on
of a surety
has any pres-
said
to
but they
would incur the expense
annuallj'
(namelj-,
to
the
31st day of December in each year), for all copies sold
at the wholesale
51.
per
sub-
for their
to W. W.
the
plaintiff
trans-
ferred
would
not
relation
is
true
proposition
and it
principal and agent
would
So if one employed an auctioneer as his agent to
sell
furniture
brought
Lord St.
not entitle
his agent, the
tei-ms. He
lation
sold,
credit
accounts
will lie
and
not
hj
the
principal.
The
plaintiflf
the
have been disposed
does not oust the
to be
account of the
sold,
could
a
court
more
than
suit is not
it prays
of
his
;
the
has been brought for
the balance, and a
account,
but
upon all the authorities,
principal is
transactions with him in his character of
agent,
not
it
would
be
before
me
in
chambers
orders
received
by you, so,
such
an
allowa,nce,
as
a contingency I
state-
ments
main
was due
commission.
suit
here
the
defendants
had
agreed
cent on orders
to
1
1
Hem.
remuneration
depends
upon
accounts
know
any
thing
; the
defendants
the purpose
of
Equity,
and
is
Foley
V.
on the fact that it was the
duty of the defendants to keep an account
; for beyond all
his customer's
an
here any such
the exceptional
on
that ground.
The case
here is
one of contract, not of trust ; and if this decree be
sustained,
it
is
defendant to pay
the
re-
spondent's
real
securities belonging
dividends
directions
sold
certain
timber
on
the
unsatisfactorj^
divers
deeds,
probates
prayed
1,
6,
general
relief.
Mr.
Malins and Mr. Boyle, for the appellant, contended that the
respondent
impression. The
no misrepre-
court of equit}-.
plication of
rehef
required,
would
have
given
ample
in
of a
fiduciary relation
was the
be
present plaintiff
was sought bj*
of the account
been in fact such
of Padwick
v. Stanley,
the rights
the
appeal
must
and
in
1862
firm
of
Tuer
hibit
a
loom,
the
agent
equity
bj'
of their alleged
and has sent us imperfect accounts
; he
has
supplied
such a suit,
loom
more
what
they
purchasers
that
that
the
charge for the machines would be a certain sum, so much
for the
Though the
terms between
the parties
were altered
from time
to time,
the sole
whether
there
existed
all
they
an account. In fact,
special agreement in each
the
in an
shown
will be
interpleader,
it
prajing
court has
court,
but must
question comes
tenant or
see whether that
title be not
profits,
it
appears, from the case, that if there be such a child
in
rerum
plaintiffs are
can
have
infant after
bill
must
compel
argued against ; it was
there was a
was
v.
Lib.
B.
1733,
Exchequer had not given
sent
him the
above two
cases, and
In
annuitants.
rents paid in,
the parties
urged
that,
plaintiff in interpleader must
The Lord
Chaucellok. The
court, to
of
a
the
commission
might
be
discharged
for
iiTegularitj',
for
that,
in
a
bill
of
they
ever
interchange
The Lord Chancellor said it might not, perhaps, be an
inconvenient
not
were
charged the plaintiffs with
was
attachments,
case,
Dewhurst
and
Co.
in
New
London,
to
purchase
for
be sent
this case, it is contended in
the answer that
the attachments are
effectual. It
there are
v. Leith,
over
to induce
answer that
he is
to get bail, no
right
had
they
but
property, as they
up as
an equitable
heard he
a
is
to
them,
be
damaged
by
pointed
way,
Weston.
The
Lord
ought to
claim
if
not,
ofB." Here,
he does,
there is
plaintiffs ought
in prison
is subject
imputed
to
who held
to
set
right,
and
immediatelj'
took
out
answer,
being
on bringing
1785, the
after thej'
first case cited,
answer of
answer was, that though the
legal
estate
was
in
Angove,
another cause, that after certain incumbrances
discharged, he
that Hernal
It
party,
usual foim,
in which
done
upon
to
the
title,
but,
being
tenants
one person,
and a
they
ex-
question may arise, whether
another cause
A
person
also
claimed
as
bond
fide
holder
prac-
without
bringing
the
money
does
not
state
a
sufficient
ground
of a
lost deed
the hearing, be taken of the want of the affidavit.
Here
Angove
has
submitted
the
par-
me,
this
court,
to
law
answer
without
oath
the
only
proper
way
danger
the
tenant
was
The
counsel
was
to
be
by
Mesner
that motion,
in his
holder
justice
entangled in a question
vicar, in equity,
out of the
as
Byne the
j^ounger,
of
the
the receipt
of
their
rent
the rent
from 1796
1802
writing, signed by Edmund
lease
17th of September,
the younger,
;
which
the
tenant
cannot
; having
no
defence
at
law
other to whom he has attorned and
paid
rent.
the
act
of
trustees
have
anj-
interest.
The
Lord
sound. Certainly a tenant cannot make
his
landlord
intei-plead with
a stranger, setting up a demand. But what is this case? From 1796
to 1802
enti-
tled
wife to
plaintiff,
tenant
The bill therefore
was filed, stating that the several annuitants insist that the plaintiff
Angell is bound to pay the annuities
;
reason
properl}' belong to a
that,
thej'^
could not have given that complete
relief which was
Lord
Rosslyn
follows
that
Bolton by
harassed
it is brought
the
different
defendants.
action, or
an issue,
nature
ripe
to
;
&c.,
said loan
required
assignable
public
of
760/.
of
alleging that the commis-
an
did
not
appear.
Mr.
to
interplead
A
person
cannot
This,
under
the
pretence
of
interpleader,
is
really
a
in
that
one creditor within
persons into
have had occasion
precedent,
which
against
had no means
dissolve the injunc-
tion
in
the usual manner ; but if there is any delay in the jjlaintiff
in
getting
in
both to
by Helmuth's
the policj\
Arendt became
him, has
of
com-
ing
in
to
he
would
be
restrained
ground that he had not come m to litigate that
ques-
tion
when
he
might
; and
I have before said that for that reason I would
grant an
(Stevenson
v.
Anderson)
I
against
another
therefore
a
claim
is
non-appearance,
as
failed
to
support
his
the
plaintiff,
who
has
one
of
delivery
of
to
Law,
Bogle,
notice
of,
those
circumstances
Griffith
insurance
for
several annuitants,
parties thereto,
cipal sums so
in the next place
said Mary
whole
or
ant Marsack
a
of an
appUcation.
restrain
him
from
proceeding
was con-
tended that
determined
the
rights
question, the
order made
was for
the Court
as he
not
to
deliver
according
the
That notice of
bank-
that
found
and
declared
a
assignees,
attributed to
the neglect
trial
without
his
knowledge
or
consent,
and
contrary
to
his
were put
in, but
the
plaintiffs
the
policy
the
3,000/.
law for the
recover}' of it.
1
same
as
the plaintiff' in that suit may
move
for
them
wife
in
laches.
The
Vice-Chancellor.
the defendants, as to
which the plaintiff is
insured on
restrain them from
plaintiffs, as
IV.
fully settled by interpleader
The plaintiff
Is.
lid.,
only,
defendant, the
personal
question
to
maintain
with
the
answer.
had
given
the bond
that
the
plaintiff
interests
in
remainder.
That
Even,
therefore,
if
the
arrangement stated in the bill were to have any efficacy, it
could
not
give
control the
269 ; Tatlock v.
and the
persons
amount,
which
the
executors
represent to
him that
the}' have
communication thus
January,
1832,
was
fixed
an
irrevocable
power
of
he
executed
an
instru-
to Allen,
end
to
Allen's
letters
would show
the grounds
Woodhouse, &
Co.,
Hammond now
moved that
plaintiffs
had
be
who should
Thej' cited
Dungey v.
"
the doubtful
plaintiff to delay the
Hm
whom
it
is
from
the
W. & T. Raikes
had
been
given,
particulars
words
and
figures,
viz.,"
8th
March
1834,
transferred
to
H.
S.
Thorn-
ton
a note of the
ND iron, transferred into
his assignees
claimed any
interest in
commenced
against
you
; and that
warehouse
of
160/.
to the iron, except in
respect
bj' the defend-
that the whole of the rights
claimed
to
that
no
rights as against
course
beyond the
legal remedy, with
his
co-defendant
of
from
which
he
equity
defendants,
with
in
his
action,
without
inquiring
have
obtained
against
Messrs.
Crawshay,
without
be
favor
bej'ond that
to the iron. This is a right w^hich cannot
be the subject
with
therefore,
Lord Brougham is
judgment,
and
have
the
having
much
directed
to
the
point
for
which
in-
asmuch
obtained an order
all appeared,
1838,
1839,
they
gave
notice
to
dismiss
the
part
of
certain
the right
real
; there
was
htigation
to
the
real
estate
that his executors
subject
to
A suit having been instituted in the Ecclesiastical
Court, in which
P^ebruary,
1839, by
gave
the
plain-
tiff
notice
of
trial
three
a will
due
for
Wood, and tliat his
is
bound
to
show
that
there
He
has,
however,
paid
have
persisted
case that because
hy letter or
simply
these
having
received
a
written
a
letter
to
Thornton,
Thornton
as
Crawshaj-
could
received
It
standing
the
And
of Crawshaj' v. Thornton,
any au-
the claimants may
be of such
subject
was
that they were
Wood,
;
case
of
interpleader.
The
Master
the
plaintiff's
M. Wood
as his
acts,
stated
to
a matter
of
a similar
taken
place
between
M.
of
husband for their
the
marriage
as
1819,
children, aU of
surviving
made
an
been attended by
to the
of facts
and claim
before hun,
but had
was
inconsistent
with
by
insisting
observed that
Price,
of any of
it
was
useless
accordingly
unfortunate
interests
of
to
keep
once involved
&&y,
been made
by Joseph,
if he
been
committed
in
only
question
the costs
"
claiming,
as
Dock
Com-
panjr
took
out
an
interpleader
sum-
under
Co.
the
such
tledale
of Chancery.
to
stop
that
but on
Mr.
Leivis,
Pestonjee,
said
Warren.
The
Solicitor-
General
calculated
question
in
dispute,
to
no abso-
lute and
him
insist upon their
plaintiffs
obligation
diligence
against
both
case
forfeited
Co.
retain
the
power
that,
since
January,
1847,
when
Littledale
;
therefore, consider them as asking an indulgence which thej' must
pur-
Littledale &
Co.
as
justified
in
as she
Thomas
alleged
by the
1867,
send
the
solicitor
1867,
the company- alone,
bill
IV.
liiui
; that
being
vexed
b}-
Warington
v.
Wheatstone,
an
injunction
was
granted
equitj-
to
one of
court at
thing if he concealed a
fact
which
showed
the
parties
of shewing
contract
with
suit in equity
the
order
for
Mrs.
Black
was
a
there
the
and
with
plaintiff
from committing
waste, which
is also
by no means allow,
disabilities
introduced
by
he
he
thing itself, when it is wasted and
cut down, there
dis-
punishable
by
the
common
which
;
as being
impunity, if
if there
viz.
a
right
jointress
and yet,
all this
may be restrained by Chancery from using this
power, when the waste which he is about to do is
signaUj^
contra
bonum
publicum.
V.
19
Car.
Win-
for years, towards
an injunction
tlie reversion or remainder
of the remainder,
though he
court
of
equity
upon
Banning, K,nd the Earl
one of
them, were
these
cases
he who
power,
when
several remainders
tenant at will
the entry
grant an
may appear by Herlaken-
of conveyance is,
commit waste, which shows that this
is
taken
to
former words
do necessarily
put
without
tary waste, and held
waste,
be
felling
some
oaks,
which
shall
condition
it
was
to
commission
to
issue to six commissioners, whereof he to have notice, and
to appoint
three on
to rebuild, and put
had frequently been
"without
cut
down
the
would stop
trust."
Ed.]
BISHOP
OF
LONDON
v.
WEB.
Befoee
Lord
vested,
articled
part of the premises, provided
thej' did not dig
The
inheritance of the
Barnard,-'
where
waste, remainder
to his
displeasure
taken
against
destroy
died
without
as
moneys
produced
bj-
the
timber
should
put
born.
be
most
reasonable
born
tenant for
allowed
out
repairs,
repair but
the lessee may
might
open
them.
But
the
Lord
Chancellor
contra.
subject
than he
pass, but
one
moietj',
B
one
remainder
a bankrupt,
the
bankrupt,
from off the said estate,
and
sold
by
such
pose
parties
to
first paid, and the
out at
Master,
said
he
comes
any one
himself,
and
even
may
as was
thriving and
not fit to be felled, and such as was unthriving, and what
a
husband would fell,
of
the
inheritance,
value
of
does
here had
to the
by
tion that it was before. To this the defendant demurred,
and therebj-
impeachment of waste, and therefore he
was not
or equity ;
and if
to
Chancellor. Though an action of waste will not lie at
law for what is done to houses, or plantations for ornament or con-
venience, by tenant
waste,
will
Barnard's
the
premises,
&c.,
v.
permitting
the
mort-
parson
committed waste
afterwards
referred
to
now he was convinced
common
appears in the same
to the
made was,
out of
stances
wherein
injunctions of that
for life
only in part,
straggling
trees.
the
mansion-house.
been cut
be
1741,
entail,
he
wood,
and
not think this
in
ridings,
for
the
ornament
of
the
said
who
was
admitted
Court continued the injunction.
his
reasoning,
to
injunction
make
out his case from the answer onlj' ; and may the plaintiff strengthen his
case by affidavits ?
to
restrained
grows
as
the
this court,
here
does
not
concern
the
in the case of
that
no
action
against
the
Court
has
interposed
preserve
remainders. I am
for
no right
to the
shade of the timber.
was
a
very
particular
of
not come
to their
full growth
such
distinction,
either
heirs
he should
not live
one, my estate
opinion of
is
not
As
to
the
waste.
This
Court
has
gone
greater
lengths
to
stay
waste
than
the
as nmch as
pjoflts,
then
;
the fee or freehold. Secondly, the use, which by the
statute
undoubted
interest to him for that
time,
a
great
part
of
it 'was
the in-
the gi'eater
had
granted
an
infant en ventre sa
it
which he
founded his
upon
the
devisee,
had
car-
ried
bring
trover
there is no
the
proper
ground
for
a man has done
or
reversioner,
done
: and
it
is
of waste done at the same time with an injunction
just
like the case of a bill brought for discovery of assets, an account
may
be
bill was
these
cases
cited
do
present.
Bewick
v.
Whitfield.
It
to
to
says because
to
be
of
mines
determi-
nation
not
do
further
waste.
admission
of
proof
in
by taking
what
those
will hold for
;
saying that
be
true
warrant the
injunction. J.
himself tenant for
peachment of
jointure, and
money from
time to
be
consideration of
"
is, what
a court
against
persons
in
those
circumstances?
At
and place
wasted ; not
on particular circum-
stances, he was
Case, the strongest that
down
farm-houses,
restraining
him
than
and
humorsome
waste.
down houses in
him
grant. So in
shelter to the
a
park
kind with Packing-
park ; they
being planted
a
new
case
rule
impeachment
not fuU grown or
can be laid down,
according to
would
be
very
dangerous
for
the
this
to
the
ural
botes
for
repairs)
this
ment of
still that the
out
own
cut down timber on this
estate without
has
reimbursed
being
for repair of farm-houses, I
will
restrain
cutting any more timber off the
estate
without
against
his
to have £1,000 raised and settled
according to agreement ; and also a supplemental
bill for waste
hy
pulling up a deal floor and
removing it to his house at Bradley (which was said to be
like puUing
case
of
Raby
Castle) ;
expense
clause,
without
im-
but if it was
power
to
alteration
he
avenife, though
another
would be
in
other sons of the marriage between
him and the
said Margery in
remainder
to
the
plaintiff
without impeachment
of waste
veyed his life estate to the defendant.
Sir
Edward
by
of
walks,
following note of what the Lord
Chancellor said, as
part
of
to
and
his
successors
right
may work such as
Parliament
by
Bishop
it was rejected. They
of
patron
is a
able time
decease,
he
continue
to
Honor, the
Vacation,
1782,
whatsoever,
farther than
only, and
thought that
she was
entitled not
merelj' to
timber, although
she should
defendant
he
must
be
grounds
at
the place. She admitted
consider as ornamental
four feet
inches girth, and elm of seven,
were also
none under
1782, the
case,
;
bandlike
descended
as
;
before the
there
could
be
me to suspend the order. Mr. Brown, on the 22d,
again men-
to
MOGG-
of certain
and being
timber in
the
Bowes, he was made tenant for life without impeachment of
waste, except voluntary waste in houses,
remainder
to
manner, remainder over to the present
Earl,
&c.
After
the
cut
house.
as timber.
July 11.
so
to
do,
answer, the defendant
obtaining
any
order
nisi.
His
not
to
be
that in
the defendant being
; and Mr. Dickens
would
be
&c., until answer
happened
he
men-
tioned it to Mr. Mansfield, his counsel, and Mr. Mansfield
having
inti-
and upon my telling
;
me upon
the subject.
what I
davits are not
support
the
and upon
to
the
denial
of
not be improper to
defendant
to
apply
and which if
taken,
committing,
&c. ,
perfect answer to the
be
injunctions
fol-
lowing
cases,
and
injunc-
equity,
that, as the deciding
save
the
motion until the Third Seal, and in the meantime would consult
the
Lord
it is noted, affi-
davits on each side
de-
fendant
having
dug
beyond
the
hmit,
restrained by
and
prevent
by
injunction.
But
and
or
any
in strict
should li'om time to time be wanted for building and
other
necessary
time thereafter
stand or
grow, upon
that
injunction does
not, the
to the
shelter
him-
self
by
suppose a
same form
necessary,
plan of
the hiU ?
So, Lf
it is
at the
or
not
but
from
fact, material
question,
for
were
planted
for
ornament
to
the
common,
grounded
The
so
restrained
conduct of the parties
pretence,
argument
that
because
powers
rights as
the
inheri-
tance
from
that
this
Court
limitation
to
the
death
of
Daniel
issue,
her
husband,
the
said
instrument
he
cannot
possession;
and
the
deponent
; but the practice has
Where the
any
charge
and formerly even
note in Peere
mere
&c., Daniel
the
marriage,
and,
after
the
solemnization
and his
said
Daniel
Wil-
liams,
heirs
wife for
issue
; leaving
of
possibility
of
that the defendant was tenant in tail after possibility of
issue extinct
: secondlj', that she was entitled to cut timber. The case
was
Mr.
principal
authorities
the distinction
not noticed except
be found
; and it
Williams
v.
Day,''
seat, by tenant after possibility
of
the
heirs
of
until
impeachment
possession,
behind
possession.
There
had cut
timber, it
Case,^
It is
settlement
could
cutting
timber.
The
inference
from
for life
to her
estate as tenant in tail after possibUity of issue extinct, it
must
take
in
Lewis
in Roll, upon the effect of
what she
this tenant
are put as the effect
of
cir-
Lord Coke in Lewis Bowles's Case, states
^
after
possibility
of
tenant for
tail
after
possibility
in
possession.
aid, nor
livery upon
was
tenant
in
fee :
but
those
to
tenant in tail
not
timber.*
ALLARD
V.
JONES. .
Befoee
Lord
divers
sums
and he
insisted that
said moneys
they
hav-
ing
respectively
succeeded
Sir
for
that
to
satisfy
all
his
just
suit
and
proceedings
his
the
plaintiffs
committed by the Marquis
of
an
dies
with
the
determined by
injunction, and waste
answered,
present case,
the money
produced by
of action is
battery, false
man, &c.
must,
through
his
done.
"It
would,"
says
man has taken my ore or timber, and
disposed
that in this
committed,
and
there
are
no
persons
of
the
when
the
lie in
person
were
in
esse
or
not,
the benefit of the
the
benefit
of
those
28,
1820.
An
account
was
directed
of
the
v.
Powlet,^
it
of waste
charged
with
the
tenant
estates,
subject
to
impeachment
of
;
a right
fact or intention of
moved for an
injunction to restrain
of equitable waste, the
tained
on
affidavits
nally
granted
Countess of
his answer to the
or not come to maturity and fit to be cut
as
timber.
The
answer
of
in due course of cutting.
On this day the
standing
on
of timber,
,
an
injunc-
Duke,
the
Attorney-General
comes
the
Crown
to
protect.
not a right, if he pleases,
to
cut
timber
court of
would
be
an
endless
of
issue
extinct,
v.
Williams
it was
could
commit
commit
waste
injunction
against
gaps in a piece
cases
have
timber and of the house.
What
the
common-law
is scarcely necessary
Bubb,
and
classing
it
with
the
case
of
v.
Day,
the
pulling
Abraham
and
ought
in
equity
to
from
alien-
ing
injunction
—
of equity
of
the
estate
to
make
whatever objec-
in
a
sanctioned, as it were,
this particular
is
in
without issue
this estater
estate becomes
life.
was
held
at
law
had,
before the death of his wife, an estate tail, and was once owner
of
the
should
still
tenant for life without impeachment of
waste
equitable
waste,
confounded
is unimpeacha-
provision of a
trine of the
point to the
tenant
for
life
without
impeachment
to the altered
be
used admit
may
demolish
under
in
the
successive
possessors
of
this
property,
that
they
in-
junction
in
1808,
and
respect.
Mr.
Bell,
the latter defence,
yet as it was not made by the answer, he could not
notice it. Upon
the general point,
be main-
the testator
death of R. P.
to one
Rowe (who
creditors, and Rowe
to that
effect; and, as was stated, had pointed out some ornamental timber
around
1820,
question
was applied to
was
or felling any trees
shelter
down, and
extent
be
reim-
to the root
yet
gone.
for
life
:
was,
for
ornament
a
cut
in
do not
down
;
estate.
That
can
be
to a
rides
the
be
within
able to find any person
who
could
or
into tillage
would be
on the eight
weeds, and
that he
as
in any glebe
these
were
the
plaintiff.
have an injunc-
Mosely*
and
meadow is
The incum-
it
is
in
the
case
of
Simmons
v.
Norton,*
upon
to
meliorate
temporary
owner
should
transmit
gen-
erally
held
waste, says,
"The law,
is
prima
facie
waste
may
;
so
valuable
of tenants for years or life. The time, however, comes
when the
fetters imposed
must
remain
the
;
is
not
Lord
Goke
anything
but an
estate for
it be
of the patron, restrain him from doing
vari-
ous
acts
of
waste
lessee for years,
of
laying
is an act
whole
fund.
rule
their wrongful
Lushington, can claim nothing derived from their wrongful
waste. In
with remainder to the
he
to
devolve
to
;
timber severed to the owner
of
to
equitable
to
the
inheritance,,
for
the
portion which, in
equity, has been
to the
no
person
table
waste
was
committed.
The
estate
of
Duke
of
v.
Mildmay.i
was
tenant
timber, the court
which
the
timber
was
sold
: that no person shall obtain
any
it is manifest that the tenant for
life may obtain
very considerable advantage
he
of
have been if
It has been
the
that no
ant for life
of the income,
enjoyment
and
the court
refuses to
timber had not been cut,
it
would
have
increased
in
for
it.
sioner,
It
fund,
either of them front
they
of both
payment of the joint
I
cannot
separate
the
characters
of
must treat
the case
act of
order according
been
presented
to
house
and
certain
buildings
thereon.
of
farms in
the
trees,
all flourishing timber ; and in reply to inquiries why he cut the
timber,
for
of
repairs
catalogue, in forty-two lots.
felling
of
repairs
and
cultivation
the cul-
repairs, it was
purpose
621.,
150Z.
sufficient
for
future
Eldon, in
the benefit
of a
has ever been
which
is
now
asked,
is
founded
come into this court against the rector for an account
; but it
be too
cannot be ob-
with
church
the timber
on the
person except
estate for
not
still
lie,
at
the
wanted
for
unopened
but
law, the parson, with
unlimited
ordi-
this
would
be
insuffi-
and Chapter,
to cut the timber,
hav-
towards
the
actual
repairs
his opinion that an
the
countr3^
The
;
of some doubt
the case before Lord Eldon. But
however
this
the weight of Lord
to timber, as an
 
Lancelot
AUgood,
Thomas
same in aid of
his
her life, for
acres of
eastern wing, and overhung
occasioned
trees, and the}-
down
mansion-house.
right to
Thej'
were
cut
on
the
15th
sent
a
19th of November filed
in this
injunction, and the
question now raised
Upon
the
house
also that
authoritv to
are
more
trees
to have
injunction.
is
some
that the
parties interested
the plaintiff had reason
Backhouse,
trustees,
of
dence, although
I think
trustees
must
add
think so. There
real
estate
had
any
John Gent had
biU, of a debenture for
5,000Z.
of the fund
In
life
for
cut, and
the capital
;
felled the
of
inheritance.
Garth
v.
Cotton,*'
is
the
injunction
College
v.
Pulteney
v.
It
is
a
in
Williams
v.
Williams.
The
Vice-Chancellor.
Then
estate
into
it on the
trustee's hands.
no bar.
this were treated otherwise
pur-
poses
full
Waldo
v.
Waldo),
either
by
would
change
but directed
land
tenant
not
trover
last-cited case
come
not
ask
for
anj-thing
else
legal right, treating
called upon
to do,
and therefore
a
matter
no
means
contingent remainders
person
taking
in
remainder,
if he
of
cut-
ting
the
timber
out, is this
might nevertheless seize it
manner in respect
his
own
trees are feUed by
the least,
the heir before me.
decided without
is
plain,
to go. There
his position is
just the same
not interfere
there
are
a
tort.
In
:
for me to
the
treat
the
—
as against the representatives of George
William
trustee
to
be
trans-
testator
or
since
died.
The
defendant,
William
Wright,
entered
alleged
any
rate
the
of the testator,
was
meant
to
person
entitled
in
reversion
would
have
right
is
not
generallj'-
possible
to
real
prop-
erty,
though
of
the
quality
authorities.
Eobinson
v.
Litton
Marlborough
v.
law,
and
though
the
suc waste should
[The
Vice-Chancellor
his heirs
in case his
said son should not live to attain the age of twenty-one years, leaving
no
such
case
further directed
&c.,
should
be
sold
his said
"
brought their
should attain twenty
words of the will
could be devested only
has a legal right
but
his
son
should,
before
Litton in
Cruise be
—
estate
lengths
in granting Injunctions to stay waste than the courts of law
have
in
granting
life,
of
the
mesne
remainder,
to the remainder-
without
impeachment
possibility of his dying before
the first
restrained
him
from
cutting
in the case of a trustee
;
if
he
to
the
profits
have
in
interest
beneficial
does
not
the several
division of
the case I
said that, in Robinson
as a
exec-
utory
devise.
The
;
that
conclusive
character.
If
you
assume
the
the presumed
waste,
is
she
dis-
by her
to
devise
more
she takes
She is to give
she
takes
by
herself."
"What
I
is,
of disposition
of this
she could con-
this seems to have
from a gift of the fee with
an
executory
devise
distribution
class on
contend
point,
cient
as reported
which
with all the
Mary,
who
before
it
who
being equi-
waste), at the instance of the plaintiff, whose interest Was
ex-
presslj'
timber in priority to any rights
of the plaintiff.
serve the estate,
in
sought to restrain in the original
taker.
Consequently,
right to commit mere legal
waste.
There
Leonards's
observation
ent.
other
particulars
be
against
conscience,
that
a
tenant
for
such
a
mansion-house
in
as to go in a course of
succession,
he
maj'
;
put
the
case
thus :
taste and
in a woi'se
cited
in
from
principle, that
would
;
over
the
estate
except so far as
ment.
in
fee
tenant for
reason
devised
estates
as
is
or left standing
mansion-house
at
Brattleby
any timber
marked for
marked,
on
the
plaintiff's
undertaking
evidence is
and
as
is
impeachable
of by Lord Eldon
unimpeachable of waste. There
question
is
merely
of
the
intention
is
to
the estate in its integrity was to go to its
succes-
go over.
to the contingency
rity is
erty given
inheritance
will
as
injunction being
its
inci-
limited interest
exercise
of
its
of equity is
is not to
already
applied,
estate
in
fee,
is
entitled
as is
committed,
the
bountiful
intention
of
the
testator
in
favor
of
plaintiflF to show, by
that no express decision to
this
restrained.
text
v.
Atkyns,*
the
admit of
do in the
be
contrary
to
his
peculiar
doubt, wished
that the
ornament around
for
may
rea-
are
to
succeed
him
However, I
Vice-Chancellor,
the timber as the
the
tail
himself a pure
fee
by
the
rectory
had never
1851,
an agreement was made
between Holden and Weekes that the latter should open said beds,
or
annual rent, and apply the net proceeds
of
said
third in
any other
waste
ordinaiy.
Duke of Marlborough v.
;
to do.
mines,
because
it
ordinary.
Lastly,
of
the
profits.
by the
that
a
certain
agreement,
entered
certain mines or
had not been opened,
work-
not
the
the
benefit
of with
regard to
and
sanction the
was within
beyond dispute
that the
to the
docu-
mentary
evidence
there
the
mentioned, and by
should
not
prejudice
say
no
more)
can
sale of it is part of the inheritance, and as
the
tenant
for
life
can gain no advantage by his own wrongful act, the
produce
is
invested
a
because it is
inheritance
Boldero.*
by
partnership
be cut upon
cannot derive any g,dvantage
timber took
able for waste, or that the monej^
had not
remainder
1842,
1843,
and
of expense for nine
any claim on account of the timb r, knew and
acquiesced in the receipt
own
benefit.
The
timber
this was
act of
;
accountable for the
the income, and during
his life the statute
Lye Sea-
;
;
If he had done
of
have arisen, then I
to
against him.
But it
he
it,
question wo ld have arisen,
because then
after the
father,
subject to the
of Limitations
timber, and he properly kept the proceeds untU his death,
when
the
Whether
he
actually
invested
timber he would be
ing the time that
the
tenant for life, the right of the reversioner to the principal
not accruing
counsel
for
Court
to
do not see
wrongful,
injures
for leave to cut the
timber,
he
must
have
in
have ordered
is a
life to the
proposition, because there the tenant for life had an interest
in the
that
first cutting,
entitled to receive
to express a
But upon
examination of
think that
Wankford v.
extinction of the
debt, but a
stopped until
clearly
Kent,
against
the
Rev.
Charles
the
execution
of
the
Fryer, aged
in
the
plaintiff.
Eltham
had, without obtain-
in
the
to
buildings
or
lands
of
paid
by
the
and costs
motion for an injunction,
On
undertaking, and leave was
notice
of
motion
hearing of the
for
an
vicarage-house
damp
repairs,
and
;
of
any
sort
was
made
to
him
he, the
defendant Fryer,
cut
any
timber,
and
a
an ordinary
necessary
woodwork
;
plaintiff
could
did completely,
right
applied
specifically
to
procure an
on
getting
some
other
timber
at
in
"Wither
that it would be absurd to make
a man who has cut down timber on an estate drag
that
self-same
timber
whether
he
sells
to
repair
may
say,
in
of the
Weekes,^
that a patron file a bill for an account. I confess that
doctrine
to
be
proceeds after
he has
be
specific
timber.
Here,
however,
I
can
grant
the
plaintiff
kind, for this
timber, though cut,
property."
June
26.
The
Richard
Birch
;
the
Rev.
William
Birch,
brother
to
testator.
—
"
Provided also,
and I do hereby further declare, that it shall be law-
ful
for
the said Richard Birch, and the several other persons who shall
become beneficially
the possession
and woods
and trees in and
of
the
as tenant for
of his personal
possession
and
receipt
of
the
rents
and
Wolfe. He had
that
when
many of the outbuildings
sold
proceeds of sale to his own use ; and prayed for
a
chase of
the income
&
The results of the
It
tenant for
; but
no custom was alleged, and His Honor, in the course
of
the
discussion,
held
may be
of waste
Birch
important element in these cases. Where a
son
and therefore
inheritance.
The
case
is
v.
law being
that the first person entitled to an immediate estate of in-
heritance is the
all timber
cut, the Court, by its general jurisdiction
to repress fraud, will
that
the
man
it ought to be
satisfied
tween the tenant
for life and
the remainder-man, but
dealing
-with
lifetime
facts and circumstances
come to be
of the
tenant
for
owners of the estate
to have
been made
making
a
simple
of his having
not
see
life,
same principles
decided with respect to the first tenant for life) apply
to all
for
repairs to
whatever.
I
though not
proved in
with
costs
failed,
improvidently, you must take the
consequences.
Mr.
Ohitti/.
have succeeded on the
of
Harriet
Higginbotham
as
in
her
own
right,
and
be
so
found
equity
against
Higginbotham
was
barred
by
the
Statute
cut
since
the bill ; the
As
to
a
made
in
proposition.
In
that
How could
attached,
and
fails
is
the
executrix
of
may find it,
the estate.
of
Leeds
held
trix
cannot
make
any
difference
appear
to
be
two
answers.
In
more than
asked as
far as
to
to the family of
Justice and
I are
the
parties
to
which
had
to restrain them
dwelling-houses.''
The
Lord
Chancellor
(Lord
Cairns).
The
question
long
term
of
999
years
estate.
as
we
the date of these leases a
considerable change has
of
and does not appear to be
seriously
con-
Bandon,
which
come
to
technically
waste
the
inheritance,
leave
the
would
Chancellor
of
in this
respect differed
advise your
same
opinion.
I
son to
not
— that the
jurisdiction as
be exercised
dis-
cretion,
manifestly
assuming
that
the
to interfere
this
sort of
propriety of exercising
by
which
the
exercise
in the
of the Governors
the
jury
is
compelled
to
propoi-tions,
the
other times
and other
when you
the
sort
properly complain.
We have
upon
that
as
sort, we are
to come into
is inflnitesiraally
to
tie
it is
we
Lordships. But in the first
place, that
Lordships, and
for this
tenant
before us.
his own
judgment and
it
useless,
much
the
case
grant
an
injunction
to
Gov-
the
doTirts
of law have established, that they would not enter judgment
for
be
a
sum.
I
what was
of
the
matter.
In
the
case
Mr.
Kaj'
referring
alteration
evidence
and the
he
might
re-
was at
where the prop-
relief
Sugden, in
the case
in Ireland
were not included
upon
the
mines
be-
cause
trusts
of
defendant
Sir
John
G.
without impeach-
cut by him. He moreover
submitted
to
By the decree, dated the
20th of November,
was
entitled
to
cut
all such trees on the Beechwood estate as were fit to be
cut,
except
predecessor in
Beechwood estate so
estate or
any part
thereof for
equitable waste, and he
Court itself
whole
foundation
of
unconscientious
peachable
used unconscientiouslj',
management
the
proceeds
and he alleged that he cut it, not only properh',
but beneficially
been answered in favor
of other trees
which were of
essential importance for
ornament or shelter :
in the
refer
to,
it
Court of Chancery as, so to
say, the
commonly called
ornament
he was not using them
fairly
making
an
unconscientious
use
first
case
of
Lord
Barnard,^
who,
to
Castle,
was
a
very
striking
case
of
the
for the
equity
did
the act of the tenant for hfe,
because
a
the act, it ought
not to deprive him
of the proceeds of
doing it, if what
if he rightfully
cuts the timber,
it must be
the
remaining
timber
upon this
ground, that
it will
power
as
an
abuse,
and not as a use of it. When, therefore, the Court
is called
to
where
spite
the
remainder-man,
and
the
proper
inquiry
to
be
directed
case
before
Lord
Now,
looking
at
those
two
that
the
cut
equity
not
them
out,
the
ornamental
possible, should be preserved,
has done
of the
 
raises
a
life
has
a
right
to
equity
down
the Court
of
administration.
It
is