Heyn v Heyn
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 April 1821 |
| Date | 03 April 1821 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 37 E.R. 768
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
heyn v. hkyn. March 24, April 3, 1821. Under a decree to account, made upon taking the bill pro confesso, against a Defendant who has appeared but has not answered, he cannot attend the master without the leave of the court, but leave to attend given, and the sequestration discharged upon payment of the costs of the contempt, and of the suit. The bill in this cause was filed in Hilary term 181G, against the husband of the plaintiff and two other persons for an account of some property which she claimed under a marriage settlement. The defendant Heyn put in a demurrer, which was overruled ; he shortly after went abroad without putting in his answer, and stood out all process of contempt. In Hilary term 1818, the cause was set down at the Rolls, and in the same term an order was obtained for taking the bill pro confesso against Heyn. The cause was heard in February 1821, and a decree made according to the prayer of the bill. The defendant had in the mean time returned from abroad, and on the second seal after Michaelmas term, he moved before the Vice-Chancellor that he might be at liberty to put in his answer forthwith, which he undertook to do, and to pay the costs occasioned by his [50] contempt, and that all further proceedings as to the bill being taken pro confesso might be stayed, the defendant submitting to such decree as the court should think fit. This motion was refused with costs. The defendant soon after put in his answer, and again moved that the order for taking the bill pro confesso and the sequestration might be discharged, lie having put in his answer, and submitting to pay all costs occasioned by his contempt, and not to delay the hearing of the cause in its regular course. This motion was also refused with costs : and the hearing of the cause took place shortly after. The defendant now moved that the sequestration issued against him for not putting in his answer might be discharged, he having put in his answer and tendered to the plaintiff's solicitor the costs of his contempt, and that he might be at liberty to JACOB, 51. HEYN V. HEYN 769 attend the master upon his taking the accounts directed by the decree. The defendant had tendered 35 for the costs, and had offered to pay the amount if it exceeded that sum ; but the plaintiff's solicitor had refused to accept the 35, or to state the amount due. The defendant had been a surgeon in the army, and was now on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wightman v Advocate General for Scotland
...(China), Petr [2016] CSOH 28; 2016 GWD 8–158 Carroll v Scottish Borders Council [2014] CSOH 30; 2014 SLT 659 Coulson v HM Advocate [2015] HC JAC 49; 2015 SLT 438; 2015 SCCR 219; 2015 SCL 588 EY v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] CSIH 3; 2011 SC 388; 2011 SLT 508; 2011 SCLR ......
-
Hopgood v Ernest
...This creates tenancy in common ; Burton's Keal Property (sect. 598) ; Simonds's case (3 Leon. 11 ; 3 Bulstr. 105; Yelv. 210; Lane, 118; Cro. Jac. 49); Jenk. (page 256, cent. 6, case 50) ; Coward v. Marshall (Cro. Eliz. 721) ; Sherratt v. Bentley (2 M. & K. 149, 161). Mr. Fischer, in reply. ......
-
Cave v Holford
...after a devise of the fee will not revoke a will. Both these cases are put in Mountague v. Jefferies, 1 Bro. Ab. tit. Devise, 615 ; Cro. Jac. 49; Cro. Car. 23 ; and there are many modern cases to the same effect. They call it a revocation pro tanto. That is an improper use of the word; for ......
-
Taylor v Stibbert
...death,-that would bo a revocation of the devise in toto, for the two dispositions would bo altogether inconsistent. Coke v. Bullock, Cro. Jac. 49. llodykinson v. Wood, Cro. Car. 24. Where,- however, a subsequent disposition of property is inconsistent with a devise of earlier date, if there......