Hart v Middlehurst

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date04 July 1746
Date04 July 1746
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 1014



See Grier v. Grier, 1872, L. R. 5 H. L. 698.

1014 GOODWIN V. GOODWIN 3 ATK. 371. Case 125.-goodwin versus goodwin and Others, July 3, 1746: After a cause is set down, you can only amend by making parties, and cannot introduce new charges, or put a material fact in issue, which was not so in the cause before, but should have preferred a supplemental bill in this respect. One question in the cause arose upon the will of Henry Framingham, dated September 1, 1704. " My estate in Norfolk, after the decease of my wife, I give and bequeath unto " Joan Seaman, wife of Peter Seaman, for her life, and afterwards I give it to her " children, to be equally divided amongst them share and share alike; and for want " of such children I give it all to my right heir on the side of the Framinghams." One child of Joan Seaman was born in the life-time of Framingham the testator, and two others were born after his death. Mr. Solicitor General insisted on the authority of Wild's case, 6 Co. 16 b, and Stanley v. Baker, Moor, 220, that these two children tho' not in rerum natura, yet took an estate for life in remainder, but not in fee, because there is an express limitation to the right heir of the side of the Framinghams. (Note : It was afterwards determined that the children took only estates for their lives as tenants in common, with a remainder to the right heir on the side of the Framinghams. S. C. 1 Ves. 226.) An objection was taken by the counsel of Nelthrop, a defendant in the cause, of irregularity, for that the plaintiffs after publication...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Sturgis v Morse
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 18 July 1860
    ...270); Due d. Jm.es v. Jones (1 B. & C. 238); Ex parte Wise (Mon. & M'Ar. 65); Nouaille v. Greenwood (Turn. & R. 26); Hart v. Middlehurst (3 Atk. 371). Judgment reserved. July 18. the lord justice knight bruce. In the year 1825 Thomas George Coningham took, as an insolvent debtor, the benefi......
  • Phillips v James
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 1 July 1865
    ...the language of the instrument was very different, and there was a limitation over. His Honour also relied on Hart v. Middh-hur.it (3 Atk. 371), which does not touch the case, for there the word "issue" only occurred; here "issue," with words of limitation superadded. Moreover, there was in......
  • Robert Barker against Giles and Smith
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court
    • 1 January 1795
    ...2 Eq. Abr. 535. (c) 3 Lev. 373. Salk. 226. Comb. 256. (d) Dyer, 25.-But see Gaskin v. Gaskin, Cowper, 660. Eigden v. Fattier, 2 Vezey, 252. 3 Atk. 371. Goodtitle v. Stokes, 1 Wils. 341. () Tiwckerman v. Jefferies, Trinity term, 6 Anne. (/) 2 Roll. Abr. 90. (g) 11 Mod. 108. (h) Stiles, 211. ......
  • Stewart v The Marquis of Conyngham
    • Ireland
    • Rolls Court (Ireland)
    • 16 April 1851
    ...Company v.The Irish SocietyENR 12 Cl. & Fin. 427. Sir W. CotterENR 3 Jo. & Lat. 506. Lyddal v. WestonENR 2 Atk. 19. Hart v. MiddlehurstENR 3 Atk. 371. Lessee Sullivan v. M'Swiney Longf. & Town. 119. Keane v. DundasENR 8 East, 248. Note to Taylor v. Horde, vol. 2, pp. 406, 411, 412, last ed.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT