Haddelsea v Nevile
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 January 1841 |
| Date | 21 January 1841 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 49 E.R. 247
ROLLS COURT
[28] haddelsea v. nevile. Jan. 21, 1841. All the Defendants having answered, the Plaintiff obtained an order to amend, and added new Defendants. The answers of the original Defendants became sufficient. Held, that any application for a further order to amend must be made to the Court, and not to the Master. This was a motion on the part of the Plaintiff, for leave to amend his bill under the following circumstances :- The bill was filed on the 24th of December 1839, against two Defendants, Nevile and Cartwright, who respectively filed their answers on the 10th and 13th of March following. The last of those answers became sufficient on the 8th of May (4th General Order, 3d of April 1828) (Ordines Can. 6). On the 10th of June the Plaintiff obtained an order to amend the bill; which he accordingly did, by adding considerably to the statements, and also by making additional Defendants. The two original Defendants filed their answers on the 31st of October 1840, but the other Defendants had not yet answered. 248 WIGGINS V. LORD 4 BEAV. M. [29] The Plaintiff having since the last amendment found a letter of the Defendant's, now applied for an order to amend his bill. Mr, Pemberton and Mr. Wright, in support of the motion. The Plaintiff is right in coming to the Court for liberty to amend. The 13th Order, 3d of April 1828 (Ordines Can. 9), is positive that " no order to amend shall be made after answer and before replication, either without notice or upon affidavit in manner hereinbefore mentioned, unless such order be obtained within six weeks after the answer, if there be only one Defendant, or after the last of the answers, if there be two or more Defendants, is to be deemed sufficient." This refers to the time when the answers of the original Defendants became sufficient, which was on the 8th of May; Attorney-General v. Nethercoat (2 Myl. & Cr. 604). After that time, tha Master had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for leave to amend...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bertolacci v Johnstone
...The motion could not be sustained as an appeal from the Master, for the Master plainly had no power to make the order: Haddelsea v. Nevile (4 Beav. 28), Lloyd v. Wait (4 Myl. & Cr. 257), Attorney-General v. Nethercoat (2 Myl. & Cr. 604), Maichitt v. Palmer (10 Sim. 241). And it could not be......
-
Horsley v Fawcett
...been filed, the Plaintiff was only entitled to one order as of course, 66th Order of May 1845. (Ord. Can. 308; and see Haddelsea v. Nevile, 4 Beav. 28; Bertolacd v. Johnstone, 2 Hare, 636; Davis v. Prout, 5 Beavan, 375; Edge v. Duke, 10 Beav. 184.) Mr. Messiter, contra, argued that the orde......
-
Dean v Hickinbotham
...the answer there referred to was the answer to the original bill; Attorney-General v. Nethercoat (2 M. & C. 604), Haddelsea v. Neville. (4 Beav. 28), The answer to the original bill was deemed sufficient long before the present motion was given, and this motion was made long after the time ......