Edge v Duke
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 January 1847 |
| Date | 28 January 1847 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 553
ROLLS COURT
10BEAV.1M. EDGE V. DTJKB 553 [184] edge v. duke. Jan. 28, 1847. A party obtained from the Court, after answer, the common order to amend. Afterwards, and within four weeks after the last answer was sufficient, he obtained an order of course to amend. Held, that such order was irregular. The Masters hare no jurisdiction to give liberty to amend without prejudice to an injunction. The Master of the Eolls has no jurisdiction, in a Vice-Chancellor's cause, to order amendments, made under an irregular Eolls' order, to be taken off the file. On the 13th of July, and before answer, the Plaintiff obtained an order of course to amend without prejudice to the injunction. (See 60th Order of May 1845. Ord. Can. 306.) The last answer was filed on the 7th of October; and, under the 66th Order (Ord. Can. 308), the Plaintiff was entitled to an order of course to amend, within four weeks after the last answer was to be deemed sufficient, or within seventy days after the last answer had been filed, excluding the Vacation. (See 16th Order of May 1845, art. 31, Ord Can. 286, and 14th Order of May 1845. Ord. Can. 276.) This would expire on the 20th of January. In the meantime, and on the 23d of November, the cause being attached to the Court of the Vice-Chancellor of England, two motions were made, the one by the Defendant to dissolve the common injunction, and the other by the Plaintiff to amend without prejudice to the injunction. The Vice-Chancellor dissolved the injunction; and though the Plaintiff was not entitled to the order asked, the Court gave him liberty to amend his bill generally. [185] The Plaintiff appealed, and the order to amend was not acted on. On the 8th of January and before the expiration of the time limited for obtaining one order of course to amend, the Plaintiff obtained at the Rolls an order of course to amend his bill. Mr. Bigg, for the Defendant, now moved to discharge the order of the 8th of January, and to take the amendments off the file. He argued, that under the 66th Order, a Plaintiff was only entitled to one order of course to amend, that is, without the affidavit required by the 67th Order, and that this was a second, obtained against the rules. That the second order was irregular, though the first had not been acted on : Brooks v. Pwiort (4 Beavan, 494). Mr. Turner, contrb, argued, that this was the first order of course to amend, the former having been made upon a special...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bainbrigge v Baddeley
...it ought to be asked for.] Mr. Prior, in reply. After an answer, only one order of course to amend is allowed. (See Edge v. Duke, 10 Beavan, 184; Horsley v. Fawcett, Ibid. 191.) the master of the eolls. I will conaider the application. The only question really is, whether the Plaintiff shou......
-
Horsley v Fawcett
...(Ord. Can. 308; and see Haddelsea v. Nevile, 4 Beav. 28; Bertolacd v. Johnstone, 2 Hare, 636; Davis v. Prout, 5 Beavan, 375; Edge v. Duke, 10 Beav. 184.) Mr. Messiter, contra, argued that the order was not irregular. He stated that, by the first amendments, a Mr. Dixon had been made a Defen......
-
Armitstead v Durham
...the proceedings in the cause, as [430] if it had been granted by the officer as of course without any special application : Edge v. Duke (10 Beavan, 184). Mr. Turner and Mr. Hetherington, contra, for the Plaintiffs. The orders referred to have reference to orders of course, and do not apply......