Greenwood v Atkinson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 July 1832 |
| Date | 03 July 1832 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 58 E.R. 394
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Supplemental Bill. Pleading. Parties.
[419] greenwood v. atkinson. July 3, 1832. Supplemental Sill. Pleading. Parties. Defendant, in his answer, insisted that he was entitled to be reimbursed by A. what he might be decreed to pay to the Plaintiff, and therefore that A. was a necessary party, and accordingly the Court, at the hearing, ordered the cause to stand over, with liberty to amend. Plaintiff did not amend, but filed a supplemental bill against A. alone, praying the same relief as the original bill. The two causes were heard together, when it was objected that the Plaintiff ought to have amended the original bill, or made the original Defendant a Defendant to the supplemental bill. But the objection was overruled. A motion made by the Defendant Atkinson, for leave to put in a supplemental answer to the bill, is reported ante, vol. iv. p. 54. In addition to what is there stated, it is necessary to mention that the trusts of the settlement were to pay, during the life of William T. Lee, the interest and dividends of the trust monies to him or such person or persons as he should appoint, and after his decease, in case Maria Susanna, his wife, should survive him, to pay such interest and dividends to her for her life, and after her decease to stand possessed of the capital, for Lee, his executors, administrators and assigns. The prayer of the bill was that the Defendant might be ordered to pay to the Plaintiff what should appear to. be due to him for the principal and interest of the 1000, or that an issue, or some other proceeding at law, might be directed to ascertain what damage the Plaintiff had sustained by the gross negligence of Bolland and the Defendant, and that the Defendant might be decreed to pay to the Plaintiff what should be found due for such damage, the Plaintiff being ready, upon such payment, to deliver to the Defendant the indenture of the 31st of December 1814 and the bond of even date therewith. The Defendant in his answer said that the commission of bankrupt against W. T. Lee was still in force, and [420] that William Garlick was the sole assignee of his estate, and he insisted that he was not personally liable to make good the 1000 to the Plaintiff, or any interest in respect of the same; hut if the Court should hold that he was so liable, then that he was entitled, to the extent of the interest that Lee took under the settlement in the 1000...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v Godsall
...give them, for the purpose of inquiry, the benefit of any case which they could have suggested upon their answer: Green wood v. Atkinson (5 Sim. 419). : the vice-chancellor [Sir James Wigram]. The principal question in this suit, whether W. Morgan died intestate, depends upon the question w......
-
Dyson v Morris
...the Plaintiff, or of the new Defendants. It is sufficient, however, in this case to say that the decision in Greenwood v. [421] Atkinson, (5 Sim. 419), which was come to after argument, was followed in The Attorney-General v. Pearson, in Semple v. Price (10 Sim. 238), and was not disapprove......
-
Stubbs v Sargon
...[261] Mr. Cooper and Mr. Russell, for the Defendants Russell and wife. See Bignall v. Atkins, 6 Macklock, 369; Greenwood v. Atkinson, 5 Simons, 419. See further Jones v. Jones, 3 Atkyns, 217; also Humphreys v. Humphreys, 3 Peere Williams, 349; and Hammond v. Hammond, 2 Molloy, 312. English......
-
M'Namara v Blake
...134. O'Connell v. M'Namara 3 Dr. & War. 411. Watts v. HydeENR 2 Phil. 406. Milner v. Lord Harewood 17 Ves. 144. Greenwood v. AtkinsonENR 5 Sim. 419. Wood v. Wood 4 Y. & Col. Ex. 135. West v. SkipENR 1 Ves. sen. 239, 455. Lord Lucan v. Latouche 1 Law Rec. N. S. 169. Crompton v. WombwellENR 4......