Dunn v Dunn
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 1855 |
| Date | 22 January 1855 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 44 E.R. 10
BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES.
S. C 3 Drew. 17; 3 Eq. R. 129; 24 L. J. Ch. 581; 1 Jur. (N. S.), 122; 3 W. R. 199.
[25] dunn v. dunn. Before the Lords Justices. Jan. 22, 1855. [S. C. 3 Drew. 17 ; 3 Eq. R. 129 : 24 L. J. Ch. 581; 1 Jur. (N. S.), 122 ; 3 W. R. 199.] Where an infant Plaintiff on coming of age repudiated the suit: Held, that a Defendant who had brought deeds into Court was entitled to have them returned, and that the solicitor of the next friend of the infant had no lien on them for his costs, although the Defendant had by his answer admitted the infant's title to the estate to which the deeds related. This was an appeal from the refusal of a motion by Vice-Chancellor Kindersley, reported in the 3d Volume of Mr. Drewry's Reports (page 17). A petition of the solicitor to the next friend of the infant Plaintiff came on by order to be heard originally by their Lordships with the appeal motion. The suit was instituted on the 21st of December 1847, by Robert Meadows Dunn, an infant, by William Morrish his stepfather, as his next friend, for an account of rents and profits alleged by the bill to have been wrongfully received by William Dunn, as the trustee of a will, under which, however, according to the Plaintiff's case, the estate did not pass. The bill also sought to have the title-deeds preserved and protected in Court for the benefit of the infant. The Defendant William Dunn by his answer admitted that the Plaintiff was tenant in tail in possession of the estate, and as such entitled to the possession of the deeds, and he set forth in a schedule to the answer a list of them. On the coming in of the answer a motion was made on behalf of the Plaintiff that the deeds might be deposited in Court, with liberty to the Plaintiff to inspect them, 7DEQ.M. ftO. 28. DUNN V. DUNN 11 [26] which was ordered accordingly, and the Defendant on the 20th of April 1848 deposited the deeds in Court. On the 16th of December 1854, no step in the suit having been taken in the meantime, the Defendant William Dunn moved for the delivery out of Court of the deeds. This motion was supported by an affidavit of the Plaintiff stating that he had lately attained his majority, and that he had thereupon repudiated and still repudiated the suit. The Vice-Chancellor ordered the deeds to be delivered out accordingly, and the present motion, which was by way of appeal from that order, was made in the name of the Plaintiff and of the next friend. The petition which came on with the appeal was that of Mr. Hinton, the solicitor to the next friend, and it sought a declaration that the Petitioner had a lien on the deeds for his bills of costs in the suit incurred before the Plaintiff came of age. The order of the Vice-Chancellor had been executed by the delivery up of the deeds. Mr. Bagshawe and Mr. Bagshawe, jun., in support of the appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Almack, an Infant, by G. Knox, His Next Friend v Moore
...Bulstr. 24. Swain v. SenateUNK 2 B. & P. N. R. 99. Gould v. Davis 1 C. & Jer. 415. Brown v. WeatherheadENR 4 Hare, 122. Dunn v. DunnENR 7 De G. M. & G. 25. Brown v. BrownENR 11 Beav. 562. Swift v. Grazebrook 13 Simon, 185. Francis v. WebbENR 7 C. B. 731. Practice Infant Next friend 90 LAW R......