Gage against Bulkeley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1750 |
| Year | 1750 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 65
IN CHANCERY
AMB. 104. GAGE V. BULKELEY 65 Case 45.-gage against bulkeley. In Chancery, Aug 7, 1750, Court will not stay proceedings on either of two bills brought for the same purpose, one by the assignee of the party interested, and the other by the party himself ; but if they proceed to hearing, the Court will dismiss that which is improperly brought. Court will not'bn motion stay proceedings on one of two bills, for the same purpose, unless both are brought by the same person, or on behalf of an infant.(l) -[Lib. Eeg. 1749, A. fo. 516. S. C. 1 Ves. 544.] On motion to stay proceedings on one of two bills that had been filed for the same purpose against the defendant, the one by the party interested himself in a copartnership account, and the other by an assignee of that plaintiff. Lord Hardwicke, C. This Court will never grant such motion to stay proceedings, but where several bills are brought by the same person, and for the same thing ; or in case of an infant, where several bills are brought by several prochien amys for the same thing. As the infant is interested in the thing, this Court will interpose, and stay proceedings on one of the bills; but the rule of the Court has never been carried further, nor could it, without the Court acting arbitrarily, for every person in a free country, as this is, has a right to bring his suit, and be heard. There does not seem such unreasonableness in bringing two bills by different people for the same thing, no more than two actions at law, where one is in the name of the party himself ; and because he may think it unsafe, another may be brought for the same matter, in the name of his trustee, that if he should fail in the one, he may succeed in the other ; so an assignee may file one bill in his own name, and another in the name of the assignor, for the same reason ; but if he brings them on to hearing, the Court will dismiss that which was brought improperly, with costs. [104] N.B. In this case an-affidavit was made, that the same solicitor and clerk in Court were employed in both bills ; and that it was believed the same person was to be at the expence of both, which was not denied by the other side. It also appeared by the deed of assignment, that the assignee was to be at the expence of all suits ; all which, Lord Chancellor confessed, carried great marks of suspicion that it was a contrivance : nevertheless...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnesley against Powell
...with a stay of execution against the lunatic, for such moneys, that thereby he may have a lien on his real estates. 64 BARNESLEY V. POWELL AMB. 103. Lord Chancellor. An action cannot be maintained against a lunatic, but it must be against the person that employed the solicitor, who is the c......
-
Worrall v Johnson
...the lien was not considered to extend beyond the costs in the cause. Mr. Home and Mr. Romilly, for the solicitors. In Barnesley v. Powell (Amb. 103), a solicitor who had been engaged for a lunatic in various suits, was declared to have a lien on the lunatic's estate for his bills generally.......