Galton v Emuss
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 June 1844 |
| Date | 08 June 1844 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 63 E.R. 402
Vice-Chancellor's Court
See Heffer v. Martyn, 1867, 36 L. J. Ch. 373.
4 0 2 GALTON V. EMUS I COLL. 241. [241] The cause now came on for hearing, upon the objection of the Defendant, Collier, for want of parties. It was stated at the Bar that the executors of. Cliff had raised and set apart L10,000 stock out of his personal estate, of which Mrs. Cliff received the dividends during her life; receiver in the cause paying her an annual sum as for interest on the a. remainin 10,000 stock. Mr. Spence and Mr. Emsley, for the Plaintiffs. - Mr. Simpkinson and Mr. Bagshawe, for the Defendant Collier, contended that Mrs. Cliff's appointees were necessary parties to the suit. Upon the question whether the real estate of John Cliff, which was charged with the payment of the 20,000 consols in aid of this personalty, was properly represented by the trustees alone, reference was made to the 30th Order of August 1841. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR [Sir J. L. Knight Bruce]. So far as this legacy has not been satisfied by appropriation or otherwise, I think these parties not necessary. The suit is instituted for the general administration of the real and personal estate of the testator, Mr. Cliff. He gives his real estate to trustees upon trust to sell. He vests in them the power of giving receipts. Among other bequests is this 20,000 stock, which is charged upon his personal estate by the codicil, if not by the will, and also charged upon the real estate by the will. This legacy is given to his wife for life, and, after her decease, as she shall appoint by will, and, in default of appointment, to other persons who are before, the. Court. If there were nothing more than this, I should think [242] the case clear. Mrs. Cliff, however, dies pending the suit. A bill of revivor is filed, and accounts .are sought against her executors. The absence of the necessity of making any party interested in the 20,000 stock a party to the suit remains. The parties so interested may come in and claim as other legatees. So far, therefore, as this is considered an unsatisfied legacy, they are not necessary parties. But, upon the question whether, supposing the legacy to have been to a certain extent satisfied by appropriation, and that appropriation to exist in the shape of a fund in Court, and an object of the suit to be to make that fund contributory, it is not in that respect necessary to make these persons parties, I will hear the Defendants' counsel. Mr. Simpkinson then contended that it wasp necessary, according to the practice of the Court, to make the appointees of the appropriated fund parties. At the conclusion of the argument it was observed by the Plaintiff's counsel that two of the Defendants, who were before the Court as executors of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neugebauer & Co Ltd v Hermann
...buyers and was not in law justified in breaking it off on account thereof. Such combinations are not contrary to law. See Galton v Emuss (1 Coll. 243; 63 E.R. 402); Heffer v Martyn (36 L.J., Ch. 372); Re Carew's Estate (26 Beavan 187, 53 E.R. 869); Re Alexandra Hall Co. (16 L.T. 7); Rawling......
-
Neugebauer & Co Ltd v Hermann
...buyers and was not in law justified in breaking it off on account thereof. Such combinations are not contrary to law. See Galton v Emuss (1 Coll. 243; 63 E.R. 402); Heffer v Martyn (36 L.J., Ch. 372); Re Carew's Estate (26 Beavan 187, 53 E.R. 869); Re Alexandra Hall Co. (16 L.T. 7); Rawling......
-
Emuss v Smith
...under Mr. Nash's will, Mr. Galton obtained a decree, directing the specific performance of the contract with costs. (See Galton v. Emuss, 1 Coll. 243.) The conveyances of Nash's own farm and of Williams's farm were executed, and the purchase-money in respect of each farm was paid into Court......
-
Kerr v. Royal Lepage Real Estate Services Ltd., (1991) 4 B.C.A.C. 54 (CA)
...by the mortgagee did not constitute an intention to contract - See paragraph 41. Cases Noticed: Galton v. Emuss (1844), 1 Coll. 243 (Ch.); 63 E.R. 402, refd to. [para. Carew's Estate, Re (1858), 26 Beav. 187 (Ch.); 53 E.R. 869, refd to. [para. 25]. Campion v. Brackenbridge (1881), 28 Gr. 20......