Blenkinsopp v Blenkinsopp
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 February 1850 |
| Date | 09 February 1850 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 41 E.R. 1078
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
1078 BLENKINSOPP V. BLENKINSOPP 2 PH. 807. [607] blenkinsopp v. blenkinsopp. March 25, 1848. The question in the cause was, whether two of the Defendants had taken a conveyance of an estate from, the principal Defendant, with notice of a certain proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Court, in which the bill alleged that they had acted as his solicitors. The principal Defendant, by his answer, denied that they had acted as his solicitors in that proceeding, but the two other Defendants, by their answer, insisted on withholding the production of certain letters in their possession as being priyileged communications between the principal Defendant and themselves while acting as his solicitor. On a motion for production of the documents, Held, that the Plaintiff was not entitled to read the answer of the principal Defendant in reply to that claim of privilege ; but the motion was ordered to stand over, with leave to the Plaintiffs to amend their bill for the purpose of pointing that Defendant's attention to his relation to the Co-defendants in reference to the particular documents, and, upon his answer to their amended bill, production was ordered. The Plaintiff Mrs. Blenkinsopp, having obtained a decree in the Spiritual Court ior alimony, filed this bill to give effect to it against certain estates of her husband, which, he had conveyed, pending the suit in the Ecclesiastical Court, to Messrs. Fen wick & Trotter upon certain trusts, the bill alleging that the conveyance had been made with a view to prevent the Plaintiff from enforcing her decree by a sequestration, and that Fenwick & Trotter had taken it with notice of the proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court, from having acted therein as the solicitors of Mr. Blenkirisopp. Mr. Blenkinsopp, by his answer, admitted that Fenwick & Trotter had occasionally acted as his solicitors in other matters, but denied that they had so acted either in the suit in the Ecclesiastical Court or in the present suit, and, in Answer to the usual interrogatory as to papers, &c., he stated that he had not in his custody, possession, or power, any documents relating, (fee. Fenwick & Trotter, however, by their answer, set forth a schedule of letters and other documents in their possession, relating, (fee., but added that they came into their possession as the solicitors of Blenkinsopp, and they submitted that they ought not to be compelled to produce them. [608] The Plaintiff then amended her bill by introducing a charge, which she required Fenwick & Trotter to answer, that Mr. Blenkinsopp repudiated their .assumed character of his solicitors in relation to these documents ; but Mr. Blenkin-:Sopp was not required to answer the amendment. And upon a motion for the production of the documents, notice of which was served also on Mr. Blenkinsopp, the Plaintiff's counsel proposed to read Blenkinsopp's answer to the original bill in reply to the claim of privilege set up by the other Defendants. But the Master of the Rolls wag of opinion that the answer could not be used for that purpose, and he refused the motion as against the trustees, with costs. The Plaintiff now moved to discharge that order and for production of the -documents, Mr. Glasse, for the motion. Mr. Purvis, for the trustees. Mr. Roupell and Mr. Dickenson, for Mr. Blenkinsopp. the loed chancellor [Cottenham]. The Master of the Rolls cannot have meant to say that if one Defendant says, "I have documents in my possession, but they belong to a Co-defendant," and that Co-defenclant either puts in no answer, or saya that he has nothing to do with them, the Court is to be baffled by that course of proceeding between two Defendants. But the defect of the Plaintiff's case here is, that although Blenkinsopp in his answer repudiates any present connection with the other Defendants, there is no repudiation distinctly applicable to these particular -documents. For there was no specific reference to them in the original [609] bill, and he has not been required to answer the amendment. Before I make any order, I should like to know what he says when his attention is particularly directed to these -documents; and for that purpose let the motion stand over that he may have an 2 PH. 610. AKBOWSMITH V. HILL 1079 opportunity of putting in an answer to the amendment. If he does not answer, I shall know what course to pursue. Mr. Blenkinsopp put in a further answer, qualifying the statements in his former one, and claiming the benefit of the privilege; but the lord chancellor, being of opinion, upon the two answers taken together, that he had not established such a connection between himself and the other Defendants in relation to the documents as to entitle them to protection, made an order for their production, and discharged the order of the Master of the Rolls.
English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 1177
ROLLS COURT
Affirmed on appeal, 1 De G. M. & G. 495; 42 E. R. 644; 21 L. J. Ch. 401; 16 Jur. 787. See In re Barned's Banking Company, 1867, L. R. 2 Ch. 176.
[568] blenkinsopp v. blenkinsopp. Nov. 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 1849; Feb. 9, 1850. \^2C, [Affirmed on appeal, 1 De G. M. & G. 495; 42 E. R. 644; 21 L. J. Ch. 401 ; 16 Jur. 787. See In re Barned's Banking Company, 1867, L. R. 2 Ch. 176.] ih 1842 a husband, pending proceedings against him in the Ecclesiastical Court for a divorce, executed a voluntary settlement of real and personal estate. Sequestration afterward* issued against him, which was defeated by the deed. This Court set aside the deed. This cats was as follows :- In the month of March 1841 the Plaintiff, Mrs. Blenkinsopp, commenced a suit in the Consistorial Court of Durham, against her husband the Defendant, George T. L. Blenkinsopp, for a divorce, by reason of cruelty and adultery. The libel was objected to, but nevertheless admitted, and the Chancery Court of York, upon an 1178 BLENKINSOPP V. BLENKINSOPP 12 BEAV. 589. appeal, retained the principal cause and admitted the libel, but ordered it to be reformed. Upon a further appeal to Her Majesty in Council, the case was heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the 13th of July 1842, and the Committee agreed to report to Her Majesty, that the principal cause should be retained in that Court, and that the libel should be further reformed, and that the Defendant should be condemned in the coats incurred in the Courts below. The report was accordingly made, and on the llth of August 1842 was confirmed by Her Majesty in Council, and the cause proceeded. In this state of circumstances, Mr. Blenkinsopp, who was possessed of considerable freehold and personal estate, executed a deed dated the 2d of September 1842, which was made by and between Mr. Blenkinsopp of the first part, and the Defendants Fenwick and Trotter of the last part, and thereby, after reciting that Blenkinsopp was entitled as therein mentioned, and that certain of the lands were charged as therein mentioned, and that Blenkinsopp was indebted on bond [569] and simple contract, and was desirous to make a fund for payment of his debts, it was witnessed, that he conveyed the estate to Fenwick and Trotter, and assigned to them all his personal estate (except his wearing apparel), on the trusts therein mentioned. These trusts were, out of the rents of the freehold and customary estate, to pay outgoings, keep in repair, to let the trust premises, to fence woods and plantations, and as to the personal estate, to sell the same (except the household furniture in Hoppyland House), and receive the money arising from the sale and to call in debts, and to stand possessed of the money to arise from the sale and of the rents of the real estates, and to apply all monies received under the deed, in paying expenses, a yearly sum of 100 to themselves, as a compensation for their trouble, interest on charges, interest on bond or other debts, and then in paying an annuity of 200 charged on the estates to William Blenkinsopp Leaton, an annuity of 150 to himself, George Thomas Leaton Blenkinsopp, during his life, to such one or more of his three sons as he should appoint a yearly sum of 450 during their joint lives or such less sum as he might appoint, and, lastly, to pay the yearly sum of 100 to the Plaintiff, if and after she should have withdrawn the proceedings then pending against her husband, and should not again institute such proceedings, and, after providing for those payments, should invest and accumulate any surplus. After the execution of the deed, Fenwick and Trotter entered into possession of the real and personal property thereby conveyed and assigned, and they had ever since continued in possession thereof. The Defendant, having thus conveyed and assigned his property, went to reside in Scotland, and sought [570] protection against personal process, by residing within the precincts of the palace at Holyrood. A bill of the costs payable by Mr. Blenkinsopp was brought in, and was taxed at the sum of 270, 13s. 7d. On the 22d of April 1843 Mr. Blenkinsopp was ordered to pay those costs. A monition to pay the same was issued in the usual course, and duly served, but he neglected to pay the costs. On the same 22d of April 1843 the sum of 160 per annum, for alimony to the Plaintiff during the suit, was allotted to her, and was to commence from the return to the citation in the Consistorial Court of Durham, On the 9th day of May 1843 it was ordered, that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff 320, being the amount of two years' alimony, from the 12th day of March 1841 to the 12th day of March 1843, and monitions for payment accordingly issued, and were served, but payment was not made. On the 7th of December 1843 the Defendant Blenkinsopp was pronounced contumacious and in contempt. On the 15th of the same month the cause was beard before the Judicial Committee (Lord Campbell, Sir H. J...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas Moroney, A Bankrupt(1)
...v. AndersonENR 5 T. R. 238. Alton v. Harrison L. R. 4 Ch. Ap. 622. Coulston v. Gardiner 3 Swanst, 279. Blenkinsopp v.BlenkinsoppENR 12 Beav. 568; on appeal 1 De Gex. M & G 496. Bott v. SmithENR 21 Beav. 511. Barling v. BishoppENR 29 Beav. 417. Wood v. Dixie 7 Q. B. 892. Tuyne's CaseUNK 3 Re......
-
Chant v Brown
...to:--Bricheno v. Thorp (Jac. 300), Sandford v. Eemington (2 Ves. jun. 189), Brickell v. Hulse (7 A. & E. 454), BlemMnsopp v. Blenkinsopp (2 Ph. 607; 12 Beav. 568), Beynell v. Sprye (10 Beav. 51; 11 Beav. 618), Follett v. Je/eryes (1 Sim. (N. S.) 3), Levy v. Pope (M. & M. 410), Beam v. Water......
-
Corlett v Radcliffe and Others
...v. Smatt-[134-]-U'ood (Jacob. 552), Stileman v. Ashdown (2 Atk. 477, 481), Cadogan v. Kennett (2 Cowp. 432), Blenkvnuopp v. Blenkinsopp (12 Beav. 568), Taylor v. Wyld (8 Beav. 159), French v. French (6 De G. M. and Gor. 95). Judgment was reserved and delivered by The Right Hon. Lord Chelmsf......
-
Tatham v Parker
...it is issued. (1) 1 Beav. 263, 268. See also Eussell v. East Anglian Railway Company, 3 Mac. & G. 123; and SlenMnsopp v. SlenJcinsopp, 12 Beav. 568; S. C. 1 De G.Mac. & G. 495. 1SM. & GIFF. 513. TATHAM V. PARKER 225 the vice-chancellor [Sir John Stuart], at the conclusion of the argument, s......