Heighington v Grant
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 48 E.R. 927
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 5 My. & Cr. 258; 41 E. R. 369; 10 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 12; 4 Jur. 1052. See Attorney-General v. Lord Carrington, 1843, 6 Beav. 458; Feltham v. Turner, 1870, 23 L. T. 347; Begbie v. Fenwick, 1871, L. R. 6 Ch. 869; Knight v. Purssell, 1879, 49 L. J. Ch. 121. Cf. Jenkins v. Jackson [1891], 1 Ch. 96.
[228] heighington v. grant. March 21, April 26, 1839. [S. C. 5 My. & Cr. 258; 41 E. R. 369; 10 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 12 ; 4 Jur. 1052. See Attorney-General v. Lord Carrington, 1843, 6 Beav. 458; Feltham v. Turner^ 1870, 23 L. T. 347 ; Begbie v. Fenwick, 1871, L. R. 6 Ch. 869; Knight v. Purssell, 1879, 49 L. J. Ch. 121. Cf. Jenkins v. Jackson [1891], 1 Ch. 96.] A suit was instituted for the administration of an estate, and to charge an executor with interest on balances retained in his hands; the decree directed a taxation of the costs of so much of the suit as sought to charge interest: Held, that this comprised not only the excess of costs incurred by the question of interest, but also an apportionment of the general costs of the suit. Mode of taxation of a bill of costs where an apportionment is directed. This was a petition for leave to file exceptions to the Master's taxation and certificate of costs, on the ground that the Master had proceeded upon a mistaken principle in the taxation which he had made. The bill prayed that the trusts of the will of Robert Heighington might be established, that an account might be taken of his personal estate and of his debts and funeral and testamentary expenses, and that the clear residue of his estate might be ascertained; and that the Defendant, John Grant, the Petitioner, might be charged with interest upon such balances as should from time to time appear to have been in his hands. The decree, besides directing the usual accounts to be taken, ordered the Master io ascertain what balances had remained in the hands of the Defendant Grant at the end of each year, since the end of one year after the testator's death, and to compute interest on such balances ; and then referred it to the Master to tax the Plaintiffs their costs as to so much of the suit as sought to charge Mr. Grant with interest on those balances. The Master certified, that it being directed by the decree that he should tax the Plaintiffs their costs as to so much of this suit as sought to charge the Defendant with interest on the balances, from time to time remaining in hia hands as aforesaid, he had proceeded to tax the same; and that the bill of such costs, amounting to the .sum of £366, 2s. 10d., having been laid before him, he had taxed the same at the sum of ,£130, lls. 6d., [229] including therein a sum of £1, 2s. 2d., the expenses of & subpoena for the said costs. The Petitioner complained, first, that the Master had apportioned "against him, 928 HEIGHINGTON V. GRANT 1 BEAY. 230. one equal half part or some other definite proportion of certain costs, which would have been incurred whether the suit had sought to charge the Petitioner with interest on the balances in his hands or not; and thereby and otherwise the Master had taxed and allowed to the Plaintiffs, as against the Petitioner, divers costs or sums of money, over and above the costs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Handcock v Handcock
...v. Racster 1 Y. & Col., C. C. 403. Martin v. M'Causland 3 Ir. Law Rep. 113 Keane v. Barry 8 Ir. Law Rep. 211. Heighington v. GrantENR 1 Beav. 228 Hartley v. O'Flaherty Beatty, 61; S. C. on appeal, L1. & G. temp. Plunk. 208. Averall v. Wade L1. & G. temp. Sug. 252. Vide supra, pp. 474, 475. ......
-
Heighington v Grant
...English Reports Citation: 41 E.R. 761 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY Heighington and Grant S. C. 11 L. J. Ch. 171; 10 Jur. 21. See S. C. 1 Beav. 228; 5 My. & Cr. 258. [600] heighington v. grant. Feb. 5, 1844; Dec. 20, 1845. [S. C. 11 L. J. Ch. 171; 10 Jur. 21. See S. C. 1 Beav. 228 ; 5 My. & Cr. 25......
-
Hardy v Hull
...of the petition. Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Berkeley, contra. On the principal point, Heighington v. G-rant 1072 HE ADRIAN BIRCH 17 BEAV. MT. (1 Beav. 228), The Attorney-General v. Lord Harrington (6 Beav. 454), were cited. And as to the form of bringing before the Court objections to the Taxing Mas......
-
Attorney General v Lord Carrington
...of the general costs relating to the £4 annuity on which the informant had failed, according to the decision in Heighington v. Grant (1 Beavan, 228). " With regard to the mode of such apportionment, I found, on a perusal of the pleadings, that it had been correctly stated to me on the part ......