Hughes v Jones
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 July 1858 |
| Date | 13 July 1858 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 53 E.R. 805
ROLLS COURT
For subsequent proceedings, see 3 De G. F. & J. 307; 45 E. R. 897 (with note).
[24] hughes v. jones. July 8, 13, 1858. [For subsequent proceedings, see 3 De G. F. & J. 307 ; 45 E. R. 897 (with note).] Decree made on motion allowed to be varied on motion and without a petition of appeal. A vendor filed a claim for specific performance, and gave notice of motion for a decree. The Defendant did not appear, and a decree was made against him, directing a specific performance, without any reference as to title. Subsequently, upon the motion of the Defendant, the Court allowed a reference as to title to be inserted in the decree, upon his paying all the costs of the application. This waa a claim by a vendor for specific performance, but raising no question as to the acceptance of title. At the hearing in April last, the Defendant did not appear, and an absolute decree was thereupon made against him for a specific performance with costs." The Defendant attended the registrar on the drawing up of the decree. Mr. R. Palmer and Mr. C. F. Simpson now moved that the cause might be reheard, and that a reference as to title might be inserted in the decree, and that the [25] Plaintiffs costs of the suit might be reserved. They cited Tripp's Forms (p. 64); Olive v. Beaumont (1 De G. & Sm. 397); Gaston v. Frankum (2 De G. & Sm. 561). Mr. Selwyn and Mr. F. Webb, for the Plaintiff. A decree cannot be altered on motion, there must be a petition of rehearing signed by two counsel and a deposit made. The Defendant, after the decree had been pronounced, attended at the registrar's office and acquiesced in the form in which it was drawn up; and the registrar is of opinion that a reference as to title ia never made, unless asked by the purchaser at the hearing. [THE master of the rolls. I do not think the Plaintiff wrong in taking a decree in this form.] The Defendant might have obtained a reference at any time, and he has waived that right by his conduct and by his default. They cited Flower v. Gedye (23 Beav. 449). the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. I am of opinion that the Defendant is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v Wakley
...only other sisters mentioned in that clause, or whether the gift extended to Sarah, who was mentioned in the preceding part of the will. 26BEAV.24. HUGHES V. JONES 805 Mr. Hardy, for Sarah, contended that she was one of the surviving sisters, and was "above mentioned," and that thereafter s......
-
Coates v Kenna
...371. Alexander v. Crosbie ll. & G. temp. Sug. 149. Bailey v. LloydENR 5 Russ. 344. Hammond v. HammondENR 19 Beav. 32. Hughes v. JonesENR 26 Beav. 24. Butler v. Harrison W. N. 1867, p. 225. Sloan v. M'Callum 8 Ir. Jur. N. S. 201. Argument to grant lease — Recital — Memorandum — Purchase for ......
-
Griffin v Hamilton
...C. Court. GRIFFIN and HAMILTON. Hughes v. JonesENR 26 Beav. 24. Butler v. Harrison W. N. 1867, p. 225. Sloan v. M'Callum 8 Ir. Jur. N. S. 201. Sloan v. M'CallenIR 13 I. Ch. R. 357. Hall v. Hill F. & K. 619. The Commissoners of Donations v. Hunter 1 Dr. & War. 544. Practice — Minutes of de......