Eyre v Brett
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 April 1865 |
| Date | 30 April 1865 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 55 E.R. 706
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 34 L. J. Ch. 400; 13 W. R. 732; 763; 6 N. R. 57, 191.
706 EYRE V. BRETT MBEAV.441. [441] eyre v. brett. April 28, 30, 1865. ;[S. C. 34 L. J. Ch. 400; 13 W. R. 732; 763 ; 6 N. E. 57, 191.] In a suit relating to real estate the sole Plaintiff died before decree, having devised the estate: Held, that the devisee might be brought before the Court by the common order, under the 15 & 16 Viet. c. 86, s. 52, and that a supplemental bill waa unnecessary. Laurie v. Crush (32 Beav. 117) overruled. This suit related to real and personal estate. The sole Plaintiff died before decree, having devised the estate to A. E. in fee, and appointed A. E. and F. M. his executors. A question arose, whether an order to revive under the 15 & 16 Viet. c. 86, s. 52, could be made as against the devisee. Mr. Roberts now mentioned the difficulty to the Court, and stated that it was considered that, under the above section, an order of reviver and supplement could not be made, for under the old practice a supplemental bill and a decree thereon would be necessary to bring the devisee before the Court; Mitford (p. 71 (4th edit.), and p. 85 (5th edit.)); who says, "If the death of a party whose interest is not determined by his death, is attended with such a transmission of his interest that the title to it, as well as the person entitled, may be litigated in the Court of Chancery, as in the case of a devise of a real estate, the suit is not permitted to be continued by bill of revivor." He referred to Jackson v. Ward (1 Giff. 30); Williams v. Williams (30 Law J. (Ch.) 407). the master OF the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. I think the order may rightly be made. note.-See 20 & 21 Viet. c. 77, s. 64, which might possibly affect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bedford v Bedford
...Rep. 221); Williams v. Williams (9 W. Rep. 296); Jackson v. Ward (1 Giff. 30); and Laurie v. Crush (32 Beav. 117): see also Eyre v. Brett (34 Beav. 441); and Earl Durham v. Leganl (Ibid. 442); and observed that a decree having been made, the order now asked would not, as it would before dec......