Hemings v Pugh

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date04 November 1863
Date04 November 1863
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 66 E.R. 785

HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY

Hemings
and
Pugh

S. C. 9 L. T. 283; 12 W. R. 44.

[456] .hemings v. pugh. Nov. 4, 1863. [S. C. 9L. T. 283; 12 W. B, 44.] Demurrer to a bill alleging that the Defendants had received monies on behalf of the Plaintiff, of which he could obtain no account without discovery: Allowed with costs. Where the relation between a principal and agent partakes of a fiduciary character, this Court has jurisdiction, and will direct an account, though the receipts and payments are all on one side. 'Phillips v. Phillips, 9 Hare, 471, and Dinwiddie v. Baily, 6 Ves. 136, considered. This was a demurrer. The bill prayed for an account of all moneys received by the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff. 786 HBMINGS V. P0GH 4GIPF.457. That the Defendant might make a full discovery of all sums received by the Defendant for or on account of the Plaintiff, and might produce and leave with the Clerk of Records and Writs all books, papers, accounts and other documents containing any entries of any sums charged by the Defendant to any persons as paid to the Plaintiff, and wholly or partially paid to the Defendant by any such persons, or otherwise received by the Defendant for or on account of the Plaintiff; and that the Defendant might pay to the Plaintiff what on taking such account might be found due to the Plaintiff from the Defendant in respect of the receipts by the Defendant for or on account of the Plaintiff: the Plaintiff being ready and willing to make all just allowances. The bill, as amended, alleged that the Defendant had received on the Plaintiff's account numerous sums of money, of which the amounts and particulars were unknown to the Plaintiff. The bill charged that it was the duty of the Defendant to have accounted for and paid such sums received by him as aforesaid to the Plaintiff; that the Defendant had neglected to -pay such sums to the Plaintiff or to render any account for the same, though the Plaintiff had made numerous applications for an account and payment. The bill charged that the Defendant, being pressed to examine his books and documents on the 9th November 1862, did pay to the Plaintiff the [457] sum of 9, 3s. on account of the sums which Defendant stated he had discovered that he had received on account of the Plaintiff. The bill charged that the Defendant on that occasion told the Plaintiff that he would make further search among his books and documents, but the Defendant had neglected to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Chapple v Mahon
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • 8 July 1870
    ...2 H. L. C. 28. Philips v. PhippsENR 9 Hare, 471. Close v. PhippsUNK 7 M. & G. 586. Smith v. Leveaux 12 W. R. 31. Hemings v. PughENR 4 Giff. 456. Irish Midland Railway Company v. JohnsonENR 6 H. L. C. 798. Frazer v. PendleburyUNK31 L. J. C. P. 1. Faulkner v. DanielENR 13 Hare, 199. Close v. ......

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