Down v Hollis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 April 1821 |
| Date | 16 April 1821 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 37 E.R. 777
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
[73] humphreys v. holms. down v. hollis. Kolls. Feb. 8, April 2, 16, 1821. A bill against several defendants being retained, with liberty for thfi plaintiff to bring an action against one of the defendants, the trial may take place during an abatement occasioned by the death of one of the other defendants, if the decree does not direct them to attend it. On the death of a defendant, against whom the bill seeks to set aside a contract entered into by him for the sale of his wife's estate, it is regular to revive against his personal representative, without making his wife a party. This was a bill filed for the purpose of having an agreement, entered into by the plaintiff for the purchase of an estate, delivered up to be cancelled, on the ground of fraud. It stated, that the plaintiff had been drawn in by false representations in the particulars of sale ; and that at the auction, at which he became the purchaser, puffers were employed, who raised the price much beyond the real value. The defendants were, G. Hollis. J. Wilkins, G. Vaucfhan, and E. L. Case, who were_the vendors, and the auctioneer, and the holder of a bill of exchange that had been given for part of the deposit. By the answer of Wilhins, it appeared that he was seized in right of his wife, of a share of the estate. The defendant Hollis had conducted the sale on behalf of himself and the other vendors. Humphreys having become bankrupt, the suit was continued by his assignees. G. xvn.-25* 778 HUMPHREYS 77. HOLLIS JACOB, 74. On the hearing, it was ordered that the bill should be retained for a year, and the plaintiff was to be at liberty to bring an action against the defendant Hollis for recovery of the deposit (which had been paid into Gourt, but which he was to admit to be in his hands), reserving further directions. The action was accordingly brought, and a verdict found for the plaintiff. In May 1819, between, the decree and tho trial, the defendant Wilkins died ; some time after the trial, a bill of reviver was filed against his executor, and an order to revive obtained. The cause now came on for further directions before the Lord Chief Baron, and Masters Harvey and Stephen, sitting for the Master of the Bolls. Two objections were taken on the part of the defendants :-First, that the ac-[74]-tion had been tried during the abatement occasioned by the death of Wilkins :-Secondly, that the bill of revivor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jameson and Another v Central Electricity Generating Board
...without satisfaction, a sufficient bar to an action against another joint tortfeasor for the same cause: Brown v. Wootton (1604) Cro. Jac. 73;Brinsmead v. Harrison (1872) L.R. 7 C.P. 547:Bryanston Finance Limited v. de Vries [1975] Q.B. 703, 721E-H and 730B-Cper Lord Denning M.R. and Lord D......
-
Wilbraham v Snow
...afterwards. Sympson for the plaintiff; Wilmington for the defendant. See 34 H. 6, 36 a.(2) and the case of Ayre v. Aden in Moor, 737. Cro. Jac. 73. Dalt. Office of Sheriff's, case 2, fol. 19, which case was adjudged aa reported in those books, against the report of Yelverton, 44, and the ro......
-
Pomfret v Ricroft
...demise. 4 Eep. 80 b. Nokes's case. S. C. Cro. Eliz. 674. Dyer, 257 a. pi. 13. 1 Rol. Abr. 519, F. pi. 1. 2 Leon. 104, Andrew's case. Cro. Jac. 73, Style v. Heanng.(e) But it is not necessary, in order to support this action, that the lessee should be actually evicted. For the word demise im......
-
King and Another v Hoare
...is altogether distinguishable. The distinction between that case and the case of. a joint debt is laid down in [496] Brown v. Woottim, (Cro. Jac. 73), where Popham, (J. J., says, "The difference between this case and the case of debt upon an obligation against two is, because there every of......