Blomfield v Eyre
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 March 1845 |
| Date | 17 March 1845 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 99
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 14 L. J. Ch. 260; 9 Jur. 717, and see 3 C. B. 557; 5 C. B. 713. See Howard v. Earl of Shrewsbury, 1874, L. R. 17 Eq. 400; Wall v. Stanwick, 1887, 34 Ch. D. 768.
8BE1V.MO. BLOMFIELD V. EYRE 99 [250] blomfield . eyre. Jan. 14, 23, 24, MweA 17, 1845. [S. C. 14 L. J. Ch. 260; 9 Jur. 717, and see 3 C. B. 557 ; 5 C. B. 713. See Howard v. Earl of Shrewsbury, 1874, L. E. 17 Eq. 400; Wall v. Staniwck, 1887, 34 Ch. D. 768.] An infant is entitled to treat a person who enters on his estate during his infancy as his bailiff, who is accountable as such. The jurisdiction, which this Court has, to decree accounts of the estates of infants, against persons entering thereon during their minority, is not taken away by the fact, that at the time when the bill was filed the infant had attained twenty-one, Exeepted case, in which an injunction was granted though not prayed for by the bill. In this case, the Plaintiff Benjamin Goodyear Blomfield prayed, by his bill, that the Defendant, Charles Eyre, might account with him for the rents and profits of the copyhold estate in the bill mentioned, which had, or, without the wilful default of the Defendant, might have been received by him, from the time when he entered into the receipt thereof, including the value of such timber, underwood, gravel and soil, as in the bill mentioned. And that, in taking such account, the Defendant might be charged, as the Plaintiffs guardian and bailiff, with interest on his balances, and that he might deliver up the possession of the estate; or, if necessary, that the Plaintiff might be at liberty to bring an action of ejectment to recover possession from the Defendant Eyre. And that both the Defendants might be decreed to deliver up to the Plaintiff, the copies of court roll and evidences of title relating to the estate. The Plaintiff prayed other relief, in the event of its appearing, that the Defendant Ansell was entitled, as against the Plaintiff, to hold the estate as mortgagee for valuable consideration without notice. The copyhold estate in question was parcel of the Manor of Overhall and Nethershall in the county of Essex, [251] and in the month of August 1764 Mary Sida, being entitled thereto, surrendered the same into the hands of the lord of the manor; to the intent that the same should be regranted, to the use of Mary Sida until her then intended marriage with John Blomfield, and afterwards to the use of John Blomfield for life, with remainder to the use of Mary Sida for life, with remainder to the use of such child or children of the body of Mary Sida, by John Blomfield her intended husband to be begotten, and for such estate or interest and so chargeable as Mary Sida, by deed or by her last will and testament in writing, to be by her signed, sealed, and published as such, in the presence of and attested by three or more witnesses, should or might limit, declare, devise, direct or appoint, and for want of such appointment, to the uses therein mentioned, subject, however, to a conditional surrender theretofore made by Mary Sida to James Blyth, to secure the payment of 200. The marriage between John Blomfield and Mary Sida was solemnised on the 30th of May 1765. The surrender, which had been made out of Court, was presented by the homage. On the 16th of March 1767 the homage again presented the surrender and the marriage, and John Blomfield and Mary his wife were admitted tenants, pursuant to the surrender of the 2d of August 1764, and subject to the conditional surrender therein mentioned. In the beginning of the year 1767 there were two children of the marriage, viz., John Blomfield (the father of the Plaintiff) and William Blomfield. Mary Blomfield, by will...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bainbrigge v Baddeley
...the legal title; Vice v. Thomas (4 Y. & C. 538), Pemberton v. Pemberton (13 Ves. 290), Dormer v. Fortescue (3 Atk. 124), BlomfieU v. Eyre (8 Beav. 250), Strickland v. [416] C. xxii.-11 322 BAINBRIGGE V. BADDELEY 3 MAC. ft O. 417. Stridtland (6 Beav. 77), Armitage v. Wadsworth (1 Madd. 189),......
-
Crowther v Crowther
...295); Yallop v. Holworthy (1 Eq. Ca. Ab. p. 7, pi. 10); Moi-gan v. Morgan (1 Atk. 489); Dormer v. Fortesaie (3 Atk. 130); Bkmjidd \. Eyre (8 Beav. 250); Hicks v. Sallitt (3 De G. M. & Gr. 782). That according to the statements of the bill the Plaintiff's title was admitted by the Defendant ......
-
Hamp v Robinson
...in possession as his bailiff; Hicks v. Sallitt (3 De G. M. & G. 782); Lord Newburgh v. Bick&'staff (1 Vern. 295); Blomfield v. Eyre (8 Beav. 250); and the Court always shews indulgence to an infant's^ suit; Stapilton v. Stapilton (1 Atk. 2); Walker v. Taylor (8 Jur. N. S. 681 D. P.). The ne......
-
Thomas v Thomas
...decree an account against him, and will carry on such account after the infancy is determined;" and it was so held in Blomfield v. Eyre (8 Beav. 250), where an account was decreed upon a bill filed by the person whose estate had been so held -after he came of age. [The Vice-Chancellor refer......