Humble v Shore
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 December 1842 |
| Date | 23 December 1842 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 67 E.R. 321
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See the judgment more fully reported, 1 H. & M. 550 (n.). Overruled, In re Palmer, [1893], 3 Ch. 369; In re Allan [1903], 1 Ch. 276, and cases there cited.
[119] humble v. shore. Dec. 23, 1842. [See the judgment more fully reported, 1 H. & M. 550 (n.). Overruled, In re Palmer, [1893], 3 Ch. 369; In re Allan [1903], 1 Ch. 276, and cases there cited.] A suit was instituted to administer and ascertain the residue of an estate, and one of the residuary legatees, after the bill was filed, and before he was served with the sufopcema to appear and answer, assigned his share: the assignee was held to be a necessary party to the suit. In an administration suit, a party interested in the residue, by his answer, averred that, according to his information and belief, the suit was collusive as between the Plaintiffs and the executors and other parties: there being no replication, the allegation was taken as proof of the fact; and it was held that the fact was no objection to the making of the decree. The Plaintiffs were entitled, under the will of Lydia Shore, to certain residuary shares in her real and personal estate, and the bill was filed against the executors and trustees, and the other parties interested in the residuary estate of the testatrix, to carry into execution the trusts of the will. The cause coming on for hearing, Mr. Temple and Mr. Freeling, for one of the residuary legatees, objected that he had executed an assignment of his share in the residuary estate after the filing of the bill, but before he had been served with the subpaina, and that the assignee was a necessary party to the suit: Pigott v. Nower (3 Swans. 529, n.). Mr. Eolt, for the Plaintiffs, submitted that an assignee pendente lite would be bound by the proceedings in the cause, and that the absence of the assignee was not therefore any ground for refusing the usual decree : Landon v. Morris (5 Sim. 262). the vice-chancellor allowed the objection and the cause stood over. May 13, 1843. The Plaintiffs filed their supplemental bill against the assignee of the residuary share, seeking the like relief against the Defendant as was prayed by the original bill. The Defendant admitted the will, but said he was informed and believed that the suit was collusive as be-[120]-tween the Plaintiffs and the executors and other parties; and that he had instituted another suit against the executors, impeaching their conduct with respect to particular matters which did not form the subject of any special charge in this suit. The Plaintiffs did not reply to this answer. At the hearing, Mr. Eomilly and Mr. Eolt said that the allegation that the Defendant was " informed and believed" the Plaintiffs and Defendants colluded was no averment of the fact; and if it were true, the fact was wholly unimportant. The Plaintiffs and the other residuary legatees (except the Defendant to the supplemental bill and his assignor) desired that the accounts should be taken, and the trusts executed in this suit: in that, sense a great part of the suits in this Court were collusive: any special inquiries which the objecting Defendants could suggest might be made in the decree. Mr. Daniel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DREW v LORD NORBURY. [Chancery.]
...Shenton v. Corbally 1 Hog. 403. Burrel's caseUNK 6 Rep. 72. Buckle v. Mitchell 18 Ves. 100. AnonymousENR 1 Vern. 318. Humble v. ShoreENR 3 Hare, 119. Coppin v. GrayENR 1 Y. & C. C. C. 205; see p. 208. Boyd v. HigginsonUNK 5 Ir. Eq. Rep. 97. Pigott v. Nower 3 Swanst. 334, n. Walker v. Flamst......
-
Fulham, Lynch and McCarthy v McCarthy (Administrator of Alexander McCarthy) and Others
...the recovery of the legacy, where the assignment took place before the institution of the suit. The same rule was held m Humble v. Shore (3 Hare, 119), where a suit was instituted to administer and ascertain the residue of an estate, and one of the residuary legatees, after the bill was fil......