Chancey v May
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1722 |
| Date | 01 January 1722 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 24 E.R. 265
Chancery Division
See Walworth v. Holt, 1841, 4 My & Cr. 637.
Case 356.-chancey versus may. [1722.] [See Walworth v. Holt, 1841, 4 My. & Cr. 637.] 2 Eq. Abr. 166, 7; Gilb. 230; 2 Vezey, 312, 313 ; 3 Atk. 572 ; Brown's Rep. 101, S. P. Part of the proprietors of an undertaking may bring some others of them to an account, without making all the members parties, especially if they sue on behalf of themselves and all the rest. This was a bill brought by the present treasurer and manager of the Temple Mills brass-works, in behalf of themselves, and all other proprietors and partners in the first undertaking, except the defendants, who were the late treasurers and managers, being about 13 in number, and was to call them to an account for several misapplications, mismanagements, and embezzlements, of the copartnership in the late South-Sea times, to the value of £50,000 and upwards; the copartnership consisted originally but of 18 shares, but those 18 shares, in the year 1720, were split and divided into 800. The defendants demurred, for that all the rest of the proprietors were not made parties, and so every one had the same right to call them to an account, and then they might...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lloyd v Google LLC
...as separate legal entities which could sue or be sued. An action had therefore to be brought by (or against) the members themselves. In Chancey v May (1722) Precedents in Chancery 592; 24 ER 265, the treasurer and manager of a brass-works brought an action on behalf of themselves and all ......
-
Horseman et al. v. Canada, 2015 FC 1149
...too numerous to be joined. The court of equity relaxed the rule and created the representative action. In Chance v May (1722), Prec Ch 592, 24 ER 265, members of a partnership were allowed to sue on their own behalf and on behalf of some 800 other partners for the misapplication and embezzl......
-
Devon Canada Corp. v. PE-Pittsfield LLC et al., 2008 ABCA 393
...of the compulsory joinder rule by the courts of equity. She said at para. 20: "For example, in Chancey v. May (1722), Prec. Ch. 592; 24 E.R. 265, members of a partnership were permitted to sue on behalf of themselves and some 800 other partners for misapplication and embezzlement of funds b......
-
Chancey v May
...E.R. 265" class="content__heading content__heading--depth1"> English Reports Citation: 24 E.R. 265 Chancery See Walworth v. Holt, 1841, 4 My. & Cr. 637 [591] DE TERMINO S. TRINITATIS, 1722, IN CURIA GANCELLARLE. Case 355.-Lady WHETSTONE and SAINSBURY. July 10 [1722]. 2 Wins. 146, S. C. and ......
-
Table of Cases
...No. 1844 (Div. Ct.), aff’d (2003), 63 O.R. (3d) 22, [2003] O.J. No. 27 (C.A.) .............. 312 Chancey v. May (1722), Prec. Ch. 592, 24 E.R. 265 .............................................. 318 Chaplin v. Hicks, [1911] 2 KB 786 (C.A.) ..........................................................
-
Class Proceedings
...continual abatements by death and otherwise, and no coming at justice, if all were to be parties”: Chancey v. May (1722), Prec. Ch. 592, 24 E.R. 265 at 265. See generally Hazard, Gedid, & Sowle, “An Historical Analysis of the Binding Effect of Class Suits” (1998) 146 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1849 at ......
-
An historical analysis of the binding effect of class suits.
...at 871 ("[T]he assignees by dividing of it into so many shares, had made it impracticable to have them all before the court."). (109) Prec. Ch. 592, 24 Eng. Rep. 265 (Ch. (110) Id. at 592, 24 Eng. Rep. at 265. (111) See Cullen v. Queensberry, 1 Bro. C.C. 101,101, 28 Eng. Rep. 1011,1011 (Ch.......
-
THE ARTICLE III 'PARTY' AND THE ORIGINALIST CASE AGAINST CORPORATE DIVERSITY JURISDICTION.
...312. 312. (108.) Id. (109.) Id. at 202. 2 Ves. Sen. at 313. (110.) Id. at 201. 2 Ves. Sen. at 313. (111.) (1722) 24 Eng. Rep. 265. 265. Prec. Ch. 592, (112.) Id. (113.) Id. (114.) 1 N.C. (Cam. & Nor.) 412, 412 (1801). (115.) Id. at 413. (116.) Id. at 415-16. (117.) Id. at 427-28 (opinio......