Gregson v Oswald
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 April 1787 |
| Date | 20 April 1787 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 29 E.R. 1195
IN LINC. INN HALL, LORD CHANCELLOR.
gregson versus oswald. In Line. Inn Hall, Lord Chancellor. April 20, 1787. An order was made that the plaintiff should set down his cause to be heard within a limited time, or that the bill should be dismissed without further order. In the meantime the suit abated by the death of a defendant. This abatement suspends the effects of the former order. The defendant Oswald moved, that the plaintiff's bill might be dismissed against him for want of prosecution, upon which occasion the plaintiff was put under terms by the Court, and it was ordered that he should proceed to the examination of witnesses, 1196 THOMPSON V. HARRISON 1 COX, 344. and to set down the cause for hearing within a limited time, or the bill to stand dismissed without further order. In the mean time and during the pendency of this order the suit abated by the death of the defendant Oswald. Plaintiff filed a bill of revivor, but the defendants, the representatives of Oswald, [344] by their answer, resisted the plaintiff's right to revive, so that the plaintiff could not revive without setting down the cause to be heard. In this situation the plaintiff being unable to comply with the terms imposed upon him, the time limited elapsed, so that if there had been no abatement, the bill would have been absolutely dismissed. Plaintiff now moved that the bill...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Handcock v Handcock
...4 Ad. & El. 683. Averall v. Wade Ll. & G. temp. Sug. 252. Hartley v. O'Flaherty Ll. & G. temp. Plunk. 208. Thompson v. HarrisonENR 1 Cox, 344. Bernal v. DonegalENRENR 3 Dow. 133; S. C. 1 Bli. N. S. 594. Henry v. Jones Alc. & Nap. 14. Carroll v. Cooke 1 Jebb & Sy. 33. O'Neill v. BrowneUNK 9 ......
-
Rowland v Witherden
...when he was a party, have dismissed their bill against him at any time previously to the hearing ; that the case of Thompson v. Haivison (1 Cox, 344), which might be cited on the other side, was quite different from the present. Mr. Stuart and Mr. G. W. Collins, for the Defendants. We submi......
-
Rose v Clarke
...part of which was read for the Plaintiff, has been already stated (see ante, p. 536). In the course of the argument, Thompson v. Harrison (1 Cox, 344) was cited. [546] May 23. the vice-chancellor [Sir J. L. Knight Bruce]. In this case, argued upon exceptions and further directions during th......
-
Attorney General v Dew
...conducting the matter and of the commissioner, who ought not to have taken the examination without an order (1) See Thompson v. Harrison, 1 Cox, 344; O'Keefe v. Goold, 1 Beat. 356; Burnett v. Donegal, 3 Dow, 138; Champion v. Champion, 15 Sim. 101; Fussell v. Elwin, 1 Hare, 29. 3DEG.&SM.494.......