Andrew v Andrew
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 March 1830 |
| Date | 06 March 1830 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 57 E.R. 1044
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Practice. Vendor and Purchaser. Title.
1044 ANDREW V. ANDREW 3 BIM. 390. [390] andrew v. andrew. March 16, 1830. Practice. Vendor and Purchaser. Title. If, upon a question of title, the Master is satisfied with the evidence produced before him, but, upon the hearing of an exception to the report, the Court thinks the evidence not sufficient, the Court, upon the application of the vendor, will refer it back to the Master to review his report, in order to give the vendor an opportunity of producing further evidence. The title to Lot 1 of the estates sold under the decree in this cause was objected to by the purchaser, because it did not appear that a remainder in tail, limited to one D. Stacey, by the will of his grandfather, T. Stacey, dated the 7th of December 1699, had been barred or become extinct. The Master, to whom the title was referred, reported that he was of opinion that, from the evidence produced, and the dealings with the premises by the subsequent owners, and the other facts and circumstances appearing upon the abstract, coupled with the great length of time that had elapsed, and there being no evidence to the contrary, he was warranted in concluding that Daniel Stacey had died without issue. (See Doe v. We/Key, 8 Barn. & Cress. 22.) The purchaser excepted to this report. Upon the hearing of the exception, on the 12th of March 1830, the Vice-Chancellor differed in opinion from the Master ; but the counsel for the vendors having said that they could produce further evidence of the fact in question, his Honor referred it back to the Master to review his report. [391] the vice-chancellor afterwards ordered, upon the application of the purchaser, the exception to be placed in the paper, to be spoken to. Mr. Agar and Mr. Seton, for the vendors, cited Coffin v. Cooper (14 Ves. 205), Esdaile v. Stephenson (Madd. & Geld. 366), Patm v. Rogers (Ibid. 256). the solicitor-general and Mr. Beames, for the purchaser, said that there was no instance where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v The Marquis of Conyngham
...RossENR 7 M. & W. 123. Jenkins v. HerriesUNK 4 Mad. 67. Whitcomb v. FoleyUNK 6 Mad. 3. Egerton v. JonesENR 3 Sim. 392. Andrew v. AndrewENR 3 Sim. 390. Curling v. FlightENR 2 Phil. 613. Hart v. Middlehurst 3Atk. 371. Thompson v. Simpson 1 Dr. & War. 549. Bryant v. BuskENR 4 Russ. 4. Southby ......
-
Spunner v Walsh
...9 B. & Cr. 377. Denton v. Richmond 3 Tyr. 630. Nouaille v. FlintENR 7 Beav. 527. Sheppard v. Keatley 4 Tyr. 571. Andrew v. AndrewENR 3 Sim. 390. Doe v. OliverENR 10 B. & C. 187. 386 CASES IN EQUITY. )847 . Rolls. SPUNNER v. WALSH. April 15, 22. May 24. (In the Rolls.) The purchaser By two s......