Hele v Donovan
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1849 |
| Date | 01 January 1849 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 924
ROLLS COURT
[537] hele . lord bexley. hele -o. donovan. March 1, 7, April-21, 1849. One of many incumbrancers on an estate, filed a bill against the owner, and one only of the other incumbrancers (D.) to have an account of the incumbranees, and their priorities ascertained. A decree was made, directing a reference to ascertain the different incumbrancers and their priorities, and the Plaintiff was to bring them before the Court. The Master made his report, finding the other charges, and rejecting the claim of D., who took exceptions. The Plaintiff neglected to bring the other incumbrancers found by the Master before the Court, and the exceptions were ordered to stand over, with liberty to the Plaintiff to file a supplemental bill against all necessary parties. The Plaintiff, accordingly, filed a supplemental bill 11BEAV. H8. HELE V. LORD BEXLEY 925 against D. and the other ineumbrancers, contesting the validity of the securities found by the Master, arid seeking, as against D., relief different from that sought by the original bill. Held, first, that the supplemental bill was irregular, and that, so far as it sought to impeach the incumbrances found by the Master, and so far as it sought against D. relief different from that prayed by the original bill, it ought to be dismissed with costs. Secondly, that D. had a right, in the second suit, to impeach the Plaintiff's securities, although he had not done so in the original suit. Thirdly, that the other ineumbrancers had a right to contest the Plaintiff's security, although, at the hearing, the Plaintiff admitted their priority; and, lastly, an action was directed to try the validity of the Plaintiff's securities. On the 8th of May 1815 Sir G. Bowyer granted to Hele an annuity of £700, charged on his estates, which were then subject to certain family charges, and a number of annuities. Hele's annuity being considerably in arrear, he, on the 6th of April [5381 1829, filed his original bill, to obtain an account of the several charges and incumbrances on the property, and to ascertain their priorities. The several prior ineumbrancers, except Donovan, were not, however, made parties to the suit. Donovan claimed three annuities, granted by Sir Gr. Bowyer in March 1814, and secured by judgments, by means of which he had issued elegits, and had obtained possession of part of the property. On the 14th of December 1832 a decree was made, referring it to the Master to take an account of the respective charges and incumbrauces affecting the estates, and to ascertain their priorities; and it was ordered, that the Plaintiff should file a supplemental bill, to bring before the Court the persons whom the Master should find to be the other incumbrancers. On the 10th of May 1844 the Master made his report, finding a number of annuitants and incumbrancers who had priority over the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff took no steps to make them parties to the suit, as he had been directed by the decree. The Master disallowed the claim of Donovan, and found, that two of the judgments on which he claimed had been extinguished by a conveyance to him, and that the third had been satisfied by his receipts. Donovan took exceptions to his report. The exceptions came on to be argued in July 1844, when, it being found...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Between Robert Knight since deceased and His Executors by amendment, and Richard Tomkinson, Plaintiffs; and George Bowyer, John Thomas Groves and Emma, his Wife, Charles Pugh, The Rev George Frazer Mathews and Ann Martha, his Wife, late Ann Martha Bridger, Edward Kynaston Bridger, Wilson Lomer, Charles Bridger, Charles King, Alexander Donovan, Samuel Sturgis, William Whitfield, Harriett Huntingford (since dismissed), John Samuel Bowles, George Warner, The Rev. John Tunnard, Clerk, John Taylor, John Matthews, and Sir George Bowyer, Baronet, Defedants
...suit arose out of the complicated matters which have several times been before the Court, in the suits of Hele v. Lord Bexley (reported 11 Beav. 537; 15 Beav. 340; 17 Beav. 14, and 20 Beav. 127). The length of the case renders it convenient to adopt the careful statement of the facts contai......
-
Knight v Bowyer
...James Ralfe for a valuable consideration four-fifths of his annuity of 142, 10s. Some years afterwards the suit of Hele v. Lard Bexky (see 11 Beav. 537; 15 Beav. 340; 17 Beav. 14, and 20 Beav. 127), and a suit of Bridger v. Bowyer, were instituted to ascertain the charges on the Radley esta......
-
Hele v Lord Bexley
...English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 936 ROLLS COURT Hele and Lord Bexley S. C. 11 Beav. 537; 22 L. J. Ch. 1007. (jl4] hele v. lord bexley. Jan. 28, Feb. 8, 9, 10, April 15, 1853. i [S. C. 11 Beav. 537; 22 L. J. Ch. 1007.] A tenanlf by elegit took a conveyance of part of the lands extended, in......