Gibson v Ingo
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 November 1846 |
| Date | 12 November 1846 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 67 E.R. 867
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
[156] gibson v. ingo. Nov. 12, 1846. An order made at the hearing that the cause should stand over, with leave to amend by adding proper parties, and apt words to charge them, or to shew that other parties are not necessary, or to file a supplemental bill, does not entitle the Plaintiff to introduce by amendment any charge against the original Defendants which is not necessary to explain the amendment. An objection, that Joseph Hopper was a necessary party to the suit, was taken at the hearing, when the cause was ordered to : stand over, with liberty to the Plaintiff to amend the bill by adding proper parties thereto, with apt words to charge them, or to shew that Hopper, was not a necessary party to the suit, or with liberty to file a supplemental bill. The Plaintiff amended the bill by making Hopper a party, and charging that he " sometimes claims an interest in the matters aforesaid, or some of them, and he sometimes claims to recover from the Plaintiff some considerable sum of money by way of demurrage or damages in the nature thereof, for the detention of the said ship or vessel in consequence of the certificate of registry being detained by the other Defendants, E. Carter, J. Bonus and G-. Simpson." And the Plaintiff then added, by amendment, the following charge:-" That the three last-named Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for such sum as the Plaintiff is or may be liable to pay to the said Joseph Hopper for damages as aforesaid." Mr. Chandless, for the Defendants, Carter, Bonus and Simpson, moved that the amended bill might be taken off the file, on the ground that the terms of the order, at the hearing, giving leave to amend, did not permit the Plaintiff to introduce any charge as a foundation for relief against the original Defendants, which was not sought by the original bill. Mr. Romilly and Mr. Heathfield, for the Plaintiff, submitted that the charge complained of was necessary in order to connect the case as against Hopper, the new [157] Defendant, with the case against the original Defendants, and to prevent an objection to the amended record on the ground of multifariousness; and that the original Defendants could not be prejudiced by the allegation, inasmuch as the Plaintiff would have been entitled to the relief it pointed to, under the prayer for general relief. They cited Milligan v. Mitchell (1 Myl. & Cr. 511). the vice-chancellor [Sir James Wigram]. The -question at the hearing of a cause, upon an objection for want of parties, is whether the Court, as against the Defendants who are before the Court, can give the relief which the Plaintiff asks, in the absence of those who are suggested to be necessary parties; and when liberty is given, in that stage of the cause, to amend the bill by adding parties, the purpose of the order is to enable the Plaintiff to bring the cause to the hearing without any variation of the case against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M'Namara v Blake
...Hare, 406. Greenwood v. AtkinsonENR 5 Sim. 419. Wood v. Wood 4 Y. & Col. Ex. 135. Columbine v. ChichesterENR 2 Phil. 28. Gibson v. IngoENR 5 Hare, 156. Milligan v. Mitchell 1 M. & C. 433. Powell v. CockerellENR 4 Hare, 569. Watts v. HydeENR 2 Phil. 406. Palk v. Clinton 12 Ves. 62. Magdalen ......
-
Bateman v Margerison
...as irregularities : Watts v. Hyde (2 Ph. 406). The Plaintiffs had no other course than that of making the present motion: Gibson v. Ingo (5 Hare, 156). The case of Powell v. GocJcerell (4 Hare, 557) was also mentioned. 1264 WYLLIE V. ELLICE 6 HAKE, 504. the vice-chancellor, without calling ......
-
Minn v Stant
...redress, in such a case, would be to make an application to take the bill off the file. That was the course taken in Gibson v. Ingo (5 Hare, 156). The registrar has referred me to a case of Goodman v. Goodman, where the Court gave leave to add parties by supplemental bill, and it was held t......
-
Calbeck v M'Ginty
...CALBECK and M'GINTY. Barlow v. M'MurrayELR L. R. 2 Eq. 420. Gibson v. IngoENR 5 Hare, 156. Maughan v. BlakeELR L. R. 3 Ch. App. 34. Gibson v. IngoENR 5 Hare, 156. Practice —— New Case not allowed to be made. 210 THE IRISH REPORTS. R. Rolls. and that as this was the case of a simple transfer......