Beadles v Burch
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 November 1839 |
| Date | 27 November 1839 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 59 E.R. 642
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 9 L. J. Ch. (N. S.) 57; 4 Jur. 189. As to parties, see Phelp v. Ameotts, 18(59; 17 W. B, 703; Baker v. Loader, 1872, L. R. 16 Eq. 57. Cf. Burstall v. Beyfus, 1884, 26 Ch. D. 35.
Parties. Solicitor. Fraud. Administrator.
[332] beadles v. buech. Nov. 20, 22, 23, 27, 1839. [S. C. 9 L. J. Ch. (N. S.) 57; 4 Jur. 189. As to parties, see Phelp v. Ameotts, 18(59; 17 W. B, 703; Baker v. Loader, 1872, L. R. 16 Eq. 57. Cf. Burstall v. Beyfus, 1884, 26 Ch. D. 35.] Parties. Solicitor. Fraud. Administrator. A solicitor who has joined with his client in practising a fraud may be made a Co-defendant to a suit to set aside the transaction. A. died intestate, having bona notabilia in two dioceses ; and B. took out a prerogative administration to him. One of A.'s next of kin afterwards died intestate, and C. took out administration to him in the Diocese of P. Held, on demurrer, that a bill by C. against B. relating to A.'s estate was sustainable; as it did not appear that B. was not residing within the Diocese of P. The Defendant, Burch, having possessed himself of the personal estate of Knightley Adams, late of Paddington in Middlesex, deceased, under a pretended will, some of the next of kin instituted proceedings against him in the Court of Chancery for the purpose of securing the deceased's property, and also in the Prerogative Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury for the purpose of setting aside the pretended will. The Court of Chancery appointed a receiver of the estate, and the Prerogative Court adjudged the will to be fraudulent, and that Knightley Adams had died intestate ; and it appointed Lydia Coleman, the wife of the Defendant, T. Coleman, one of the next of kin, administratrix to the deceased. An agreement for compromising the above-mentioned suits was afterwards made (1) An action was accordingly commenced, but the Defendant consented to a verdict being taken against him. 10 3IM. 333. BEADLES V. BURCH 643 between the next of kin and Burch ; one of the terms of which was that the draft of it should be settled by counsel on behalf of all parties, and, as so settled, should be finally approved of and adopted by them. The draft was settled accordingly; but, pending a discussion which afterwards took place between the parties and their solicitors, relative to the particulars and value of the intestate's property as stated in the draft, a fraudulent scheme, as the bill alleged, was resorted to by Burch and his solicitors in collusion together and in collusion with T. Coleman and Lydia, his wife, and their solicitors, for procuring the agreement to be completed on terms more favourable to Burch than those contained in the draft settled by [333] counsel, by relieving Burch from a portion of the costs, charges and expenses which, according to the draft, he was to pay: and, iti order to carry such scheme into effect, Messrs. James & Sons, Bureh's solicitors, without any communication to the Plaintiffs (who were two of the surviving next of kin, and the administrator of one of the deceased next of kin of the intestate) caused the draft to be altered in certain material respects, and an engrossment, made by them therefrom, to be executed on the 17th of May 1838 by the Plaintiffs and the other parties to the agreement. The bill then set forth the deed of compromise as executed by the parties, and pointed out in what respects it differed from the draft settled by counsel: and it alleged that the Plaintiffs were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v Godsall
...that the letters of the Prerogative Court were necessary : Jernegan v. Baxter (5 Sim. 568); Twyford v. Trail (7 Sim. 92); Beadles v. Bwch (10 Sim. 332). The diocesan administration may be altogether void. (1 Williams on Executors, 237, 3d ed.) Secondly, that it appeared by the letters of ad......
-
Frail v Ellis
...the obligation of inquiring of the Plaintiff, before he advanced his money. Levy is properly made a party to the suit, Beadles v. Burch (10 Sim. 332). [352] Mr. Roupell and Mr. Busk, for Ellis. First. The evidence shews that the consideration was £150 in money and a bill of exchange for £30......
-
Crofts v Allman
...SmithENR Jac. 490. Howe v. BestUNK 5 Mad. 19. Columbine v. ChichesterENR 2 Phil. 28. Lund v. BlanshardENR 4 Hare, 30. Beadles v. BurchENR 10 Sim. 332. Roddy v. Williams 3 J. & L. 1. Finden v. StephensENR 2 Phil. 147. Campbell v. Mackay 1 M. & Cr. 603. The Attorney-General v. Poole 4 M. & Cr......
-
Slator v Nolan
...Taml. 421. Purdie v. MillettENR Taml. 31. Callaghan v. CallaghanENR 8 Cl. & Fin. 374. Moore v. PranceENR 9 Hare, 303. Beadles v. BurchENR 10 Sim. 332. Berry v. ArmisteadENR 2 Keen, 227. Gilbert v. LewisUNK 1 D. J. & S. 52. Baker v. LoaderELR L. R. 16 Eq. 49. Mare v. Lewis Ir. R. 4 Eq . 219.......