Byde v Masterman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 May 1841 |
| Date | 01 May 1841 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 41 E.R. 492
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
bvdb v. masterman. Apiil 30, May 1, 1841. Trustees of real estates having, in a schedule to their answer to a bill for an account of the trust estates, set forth the minute particulars of the different estates with undue prolixity and diffuseness, a general exception to the schedule, as being impertinently set forth, was allowed by the Master, and an exception to his report was overruled by the Court, although it appeared that there were a few passages in the schedule which were not liable to that objection. This was an appeal from the order of the Master of the Rolls, allowing an exception to the Master's report, by which he had certified that the whole of the first schedule to the answer of two of the Defendants was impertinent. [266] The bill was filed for an account of the rents, profits, and proceeds of sale^ of certain freehold and copyhold estates which had been conveyed and surrendered by a person since deceased, to three trustees, of whom the two Defendants, whose answer was in question, were the survivors, upon certain trusts, which were declared, as to part of the estates, by an indenture of the 26th of October 1826, and, as to the rest, by the will of the settlor of subsequent date. By the indenture, the estates therein comprised were directed to be sold immediately after the settlor's death for the payment of his debts and certain charges and incnmbrances. The estates of which the trusts were declared by the will were also charged, generally, with the payment of the testator's debts; but the ulterior limitations of both instruments were, so far as the Plaintiff's interest was. concerned, the same. In the interrogating part of the bill the Defendants, the trustees, were required' to set forth whether in the year 1826, or at some other and what time, Thomas Hope Byde (the settlor) deceased, was not seised of or otherwise well entitled to divers, or some and what manors or lordships ; and whether or not divers, or some and what freehold and copyhold messuages, farms, lands, and hereditaments; and whether or not for such estates therein respectively as were thereinbefore in that behalf mentioned, or for some and what other estate or estates; and whether the said Thomas Hope Byde was not at the respective times of making his will and of his. death, or when else in particular, seised or well entitled of or to divers or some and what manors; and whether or not also of or to divers or some and what freehold,, and whether or not also of or to divers or some and what copyhold estate or estates ; and whether or not of great, [267] or some and what value; and whether or not for such interests therein respectively as thereinbefore in that behalf mentioned; or for some and what other interests or interest, or how otherwise. In a subsequent passage of the bill there was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v Cripps
...have simply referred to the documents there set out without copying them verbatim ; Slack v. Evans (7 Price, 278, n.), Byde v. Masterman (Cr. & Ph. 265). the vice-chancellor [Sir J. L. Knight Bruce] (after intimating that he would not call for a reply unless, upon a further examination of t......
-
Raven v Kerl
...the expunged passages are undoubtedly impertinent, and, therefore, the certificate cannot stand. They also referred to Byde v. Masterman (Cr. & Ph. 265). Mr. Wigram and Mr. Fooks objected that, as the impertinent matter was actually expunged, exceptions could not be taken. They also referre......