Chancey v May
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1722 |
| Date | 01 January 1722 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
English Reports Citation: 24 E.R. 265
Chancery Division
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 S. P. and the sequel of it upon a rehearing. Ante, 568, 572, S. P.ùAnte, 108, e contra. At Lord Chancellor's on Pleas and Demurrers. Husband and wife by marriage settlement, are made tenants for life ; remainder to their first and other sons of the marriage successively, in tail male : after the birth of their eldest son, and 7 other children, they, by lease and release, and fine, mortgage the lands ; this is a forfeiture, and the mortgagee must lose his money. On the marriage of the defendant's father, the estate in question was settled on the father for life ; remainder to the first and other sons of the marriage successively, in tail male ; with other remainders over. The defendant was the eldest son of that marriage, and there were seven or eight other children ; after the birth of all those children, the father and mother having occasion for about £300, make a mortgage of this estate, which was done by way of lease and release, and fine, come ceo, &c. ; this mortgage money, by the addition of other monies lent, and interest from time to time, increased, till at last it came to £700, and then it was assigned to the plaintiff, and another lease and release, and fine, were levied and executed by the husband and wife, for the making good of this assignment : the husband died, and this bill was brought against the widow and eldest son, that they might redeem, or be fore- closed, the mortgage money being near the value of the estate, and to be relieved against the forfeiture. The defendant, the son, [592] pleaded the marriage-settlement of his father and mother, whereby they were but tenants for life, and insisted on the forfeiture. My Lord Chancellor allowed the plea, and said, this was a contrivance to destroy the settlement, and disinherit the son ; and said, he had declared his opinion before, in cases of this nature, that there could be no relief, particularly in the case of Sir Harry Peachy and Duke of Somerset (ante, 572) ; so the plaintiff lost her whole money. Case 356.ùCHANCEY versus MAY. [1722.] [See Walworth v. Holt, 1841, 4 My. & Cr, 637.] 2 Eq. Abr. 166, 7...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lloyd v Google LLC
...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 other proprietors of the un......
-
Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. et al. v. Dutton et al., (2001) 286 A.R. 201 (SCC)
...245; 49 B.C.A.C. 1; 80 W.A.C. 1; [1994] 9 W.W.R. 609; 22 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1; 117 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 17]. Chancey v. May (1722), Prec. Ch. 592; 2 E.R. 265, refd to. [para. 20]. London (City) v. Richmond (1701), 2 Vern. 421; 23 E.R. 870, refd to. [para. 21]. Wallworth v. Holt (1841)......
-
Horseman et al. v. Canada, 2015 FC 1149
...conflict became 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 misapplica......
-
Devon Canada Corp. v. PE-Pittsfield LLC et al., 2008 ABCA 393
...result of relaxation 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 em......