Bateman and Others v Davis and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 February 1818 |
| Date | 27 February 1818 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 56 E.R. 446
COURT OF THE VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND
Bateman and Others
and
Davis and Others
See Stevens v. Robertson, 1868, 37 L. J. Ch. 502.
[98] bateman and others v. davis axd others. Feb. -11, 1818. [See Steven* v. Hobm-lsim, 1868, 37 L. J. Ch. 502.] Power to trustees, with consent of A. under her hand, with two witnesses, to advance 1500 to her husband. They advance the money, without the consent of A. Afterwards A., by an instrument under her hand, attested by two witnesses, testifies that the money was advanced with her consent. Held, on a bill filed by A., that the trustees must refund the 1500. From the bill and answer in this cause, the facts appeared to be that by a settlement on the marriage of the Plaintiff, a power was given to the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
6 cases
-
Carter v Commissioner of Taxation
...2007 (NSW) ss 72, 81 Cases cited: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich [2009] NSWSC 1229; 236 FLR 1 Bateman v Davis (1818) 3 Madd 98 Blenkinsop v Herbert [2017] WASCA 87; 51 WAR 264 Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 Commissioner of Taxation v Bamford [2010] HCA 10; 240 CLR 481 ......
-
John Wansey Nathaniel Bentley, Martha Chetham Bentley, Caroline Bentley and Helen Bentley, Petitioners; William Robinson, Katherine Jacaud and Jane Jacaud, Respondent
...3 Russ. 343. Hughes v. Wynne T. & R. 307. Symons v. JamesENR 2 Y. & C., C. C., 301. Cocker v.Quayle 1 R. & M. 535. Bateman v. DavisENR 3 Madd. 98. Dunne v. DoranUNK 13 Ir. Eq. Rep. 546. Brereton v. Hutchinson 3 Ir. Chan. Rep. 362. Thorne v. KerrENR 2 K. & J. 54. Walker v. Symonds 3 Swanst. ......
-
Offen v Harman
...Mr. Roundell Palmer and Mr. Freeman, in support of the decision at the Bolls. They referred to M'Queen v. Faryiifiar (11 Ves. 467Bateman v. Dams (3 Madd. 98); Hawkins v. Kemp (3 East. 410) ; Wright v. Wakefonl (17 Ves. 454); Freer v. Hesse (4 De G. M. & G. 495); Sugrlen on Powers (page 339)......
-
The King against The Inhabitants of Spreyton
...invalid. It is unnecessary to decide the first point, as we are all of opinion that the assignment was bad. The statute 32 G. 3Bateman v. Davis (3 Madd. 98). And if this were otherwise, here the statute prescribes a particular mode in which the master shall authorise the assignment. Besides......
Get Started for Free