Crompton v Wombwell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 April 1832 |
| Date | 28 April 1832 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 58 E.R. 235
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
For subsequent proceedings, see 5 Sim. 353.
Pleading. Supplemental Bill. Demurrer.
[628] crompton v. wombwell. Nov. 4, 1831. [For subsequent proceedings, see 5 Sim. 353.] Pleading. Supplemental Bill. Demurrer. If a Plaintiff, when his cause is in such a state that he cannot amend his bill, discovers new matter which may tend to shew that he is entitled to the relief prayed by his bill, he may file a supplemental bill for the purpose of putting the new matter in issue. In May 1805 the Defendants, Lord Melbourne and Sir George Wombwell, as trustees of the estates of the late Earl of Fauconberg, contracted to sell to the Plaintiff a part of those estates situate in the parishes of Leak and Over Silton in Yorkshire tithe free. In 1807 the Vicar of Leak filed a bill in the Exchequer against the tenants of those parts of the estates which were situate in the parish of Leak, claiming the tithes of hay and all the small tithes of the lands in their occupation. 13y indentures of lease and release of the 9th and 10th of June 1808 the estates agreed to be sold were, in pursuance of the contract, conveyed by the trustees and other necessary parties to the Plaintiff in fee : and by a memorandum indorsed on the release it was declared that although 14,000 was, in the release and the receipt indorsed thereon, mentioned to be the consideration money paid to the trustees, yet 10,400 only was, in fact, paid to them, the sum of 3609 having been laid out by the Plaintiff, with the consent of the trustees, in the purchase of 5255, 9s. three per cent. Eeduced annuities, in the names of the trustees and of the Plaintiff and Samuel Crompton the younger, pending the suit in the Exchequer : aud that it had been agreed that, until that suit should be decided, the dividends of the 5255, 9s. Eeduced annuities should be received by the trustees, and by the Plaintiff aud Samuel Crompton the younger, and be laid out in their names to accumulate, and that the accumulated fund should be disposed of [629] according to the trusts to be declared thereof by a deed then intended to be prepared. Accordingly, by a deed-poll, elated the 21st of October 1808, it was declared that Lord Melbourne, Sir (4. Wombwell, the Plaintiff and Samuel Crompton the younger should, until the suit in the 236 CROMPTON V. WOMBWELL 4 SIM. 630- Exchequer should be determined, accumulate the dividends of the 5255, 9s. Eeduced annuities, and in case the suit should be determined against the vicar, then that they should transfer the accumulated fund to Lord Melbourne and Sir George Wombwell -f but in case, on the decision of the suit, all or any of the estates purchased by the Plaintiff should be decreed to be subject to tithes, then upon trust that Lord Melbourne, Sir George Wombwell and Samuel Crompton the younger should, out of such accumulated fund, raise and pay to the Plaintiff so much money as would be a sufficient compensation to him for his costs of the suit and for the tithes which should be decreed to belong to the vicar, and should transfer the residue of the fund to Lord Melbourne and Sir G. Wombwell. In February 1825 the tithe suit in the Exchequer was heard, and the bill was dismissed with costs. The original bill in this cause, which was filed against Lord Melbourne, Sir Gorge Wombwell, George Wombwell, Thomas Edward Wynn Bellasyse, Samuel Crompton the younger, A. E. Cocker and E. Speechly, alleged that the accumulated fund then amounted to 10,267, 15s. 6d. three per cent. Eeduced annuities : that, pending the suit in the Exchequer, certain old documents were found in the evidence-room of the late Lord Fauconberg, which tended to prove that the lands which the Plaintiff" had purchased in the parish of [630] Over Silton were subject to the payment of tithes to the master, fellows and scholars of Trinity College, Cambridge, who were the rectors of that parish. The bill further alleged that the Faueonberg family had been, for a great many years, lessees of the tithes of Over Silton under the college : and that the last of such leases expired at Michaelmas 1819, when Lord Melbourne and Sir George Wombwell declined to renew : that, until after the execution of the deed-poll, the Plaintiff' had no notice of the before-mentioned documents, or that the college or any person, except the Vicar of Leak, claimed, or had any ground for claiming, tithes arising on the lands which he had purchased. The bill prayed that the Plaintiff might be paid a compensation out of the accumulated fund for the tithes of the lands which he had purchased in Over Silton. The answers to this bill having been put in and replied to in Hilary term 1830, the cause was set down for hearing; and publication was enlarged, by consent, till Michaelmas term 1831. On the 20th of July 1831 the Plaintiff filed a supplemental, bill against the same persons as were Defendants to the original bill (except Lord Melbourne who was dead), setting forth some of the allegations and the prayer of the original bill, and the proceedings which had taken place in the suit, and stating, by way of supplement, that, in the aforesaid stage of the said cause, and in June 1831, the Plaintiff, for the first time, discovered that the master, fellows and scholars of Trinity College, and the several persons thereinafter named, had executed the deeds after mentioned, and that Sir George Wombwell had taken the after-mentioned leases and' under-leases; and that previously to June 1831 the Plaintiff had no knowledge or notice that Sir [631] George Wombwell had or claimed any interest in the tithes of Over Silton : that, by an indenture of the 20th October 1817, Trinity College demised to J. Horner and Joseph Smith the tithes of Over Silton, for the term of 20 years from Michaelmas then last, subject to a lease theretofore granted thereof to Lord Fauconberg, two years of which were then unexpired: that by an indenture of the 26th of October 1820 the lease was assigned by Smith and by Horner's executors to Sir George Wombwell: that since the execution of the indenture of October 1820 Sir George Wombwell had obtained a renewal of the lease, and that the deed of renewal, and also the deed of October 1820, were in the custody of Sir George Wombwell, or of some other person, and that he ought to set forth the date, parties' names and material contents of the former deed, and in whose custody it was : that since the original bill was filed the 10,267 Reduced annuities had been transferred into, and were then standing in the name of the Accountant-General in trust in the original cause, and that Sir George Wombwell, George Wombwell, T. E. W. Bellasyse, A. E. Cocker and E. Speechley claimed to be entitled to that sum: that Lord Melbourne was dead, and Sir George Wombwell had become the surviving trustee under Lord Fauconberg's will: that it was most important to the Plaintiff to shew and give in evidence at the hearing of the cause against the Defendants to the original bill that the before-mentioned leases and under-leases had been granted ; -4 SIM. 632. CROMPTON V. WOMB WELL 237 -and that, for that purpose and under the circumstances therein appearing, the Plaintiff was entitled to file that his supplemental bill. The prayer was, that that bill might be declared and taken to be a supplemental bill to the original bill, and that the Plaintiff might have the bene-[632]-fit thereof, and of the original suit and proceedings, and that the Plaintiff might have the relief prayed by his original bill, and such further or other relief as, &c. Sir G. Wombwell demurred to the supplemental bill. Mr. Pepys and Mr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dawson v Brinckman
...v. Richardson (Younge, 1), Shepherd v. Keatley (1 C. M. & R. 117), Blaeh-ford v. Kirkpatrick (6 Beav. 232), Crompton v. Lord Melbourne (5 Sim. 353), The Marquii Twmshend v. Stangromn (6 Ves. 328), Harnett v. Yeildiny (2 Sch. & Lef. 549). Story Eq. Jur., vol. 2, pi. 742 ; Sugd. Vend. & Pureh......
-
M'Namara v Blake
...v. Wood 4 Y. & Col. Ex. 135. West v. SkipENR 1 Ves. sen. 239, 455. Lord Lucan v. Latouche 1 Law Rec. N. S. 169. Crompton v. WombwellENR 4 Sim. 628. Kelly v. LennonENRUNK 1 Jo. & Lat. 305; S. C. 7 Ir. Eq. Rep. 98. Blackburne v. StanilandENR 15 Sim. 640 Smith v. EffinghamUNK 11 Jur. 896. Semp......
-
The Earl of Durham v Sir Francis Legard
...purchase-money for so much as the quantity falls short of the representation ;" Hill v. Biwkley (17 Ves. 394); Crrnnptm v. Lard Melbourne (5 Sim. 353); Sugden's Vendors (p. 268 (13th ed.)). Sir Hugh Cairns, Mr. Hobhouse and Mr. Williamson, for the Defendant, were not called on. the master o......
-
Wood v Wood
...may file a supplemental bill without the permission of the Court. Mitf PL 61, 62, Dormer v. Fortescue (3 Atk. 133), Crompton v. Wombwll (4 Sim. 628). He also relied on two other points, which are noticed but not acted upon in the judgment. [137] Mr. Simpkinson, in reply. The terms of the or......