Cole v Sewell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 May 1846 |
| Date | 29 May 1846 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 60 E.R. 627
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Partition.
1 BIN. JS4. COLE V. SB WELL 627 [284] cole v. sewell. May 29, 1846. Partition. In a suit for partition, if a reference ia necessary to ascertain the interests of the parties, the direction for the commission ought to be postponed until the hearing for further directions. In this case, the vice-chancellor [Sir L. Shadwell] said that in a suit for partition, if a reference is necessary to ascertain the shares and interests of the parties, the direction for issuing the commission ought not to be embodied in the decree on the hearing, but ought to be postponed until the Master has made hia report, and the cause comes on for further directions.(1) Mr. Stuart, Mr. Hislop Clarke and Mr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bael of Bandon v Moreland
... ... This power of selection is not a remainder after an estate tail, which must take effect on the termination of the estate tail, as in Cole v. Sewell ( 4 ). It is a shifting use, and need not come into existence during the estate tail. The power could call into existence an estate ... ...
-
Knox v Mayo
...v. HornbyENR 7 East, 199. Rex v. OsborneENR 4 East, 327. Stammers v. DixonENR 7 East, 200. Agar v. Fairfax 17 Ves. 533. Cole v. SewellENR 15 Sim. 284. Jope v. MorsheadENR 6 Beav. 218. The Archbishop of Dublin v. Lord TrimlestonUNK 12 Ir. Eq. Rep. 267. 192 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1858. Ch. Appeal.......