Hyde v Edwards
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 November 1849 |
| Date | 26 November 1849 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 41 E.R. 1323
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 12 Beav. 160; 1 H. & Tw. 552; 13 Jur. 757.
hyde v. edwakds. Nov. 26, 1849. [S. C. 12 Beav. 160 ; 1 H. & Tw. 552 ; 13 Jur. 757.] In directing a reference under a private Act of Parliament, the Court will make the same provision for the production of deeds and the examination of parties and witnesses, as in the case of a reference in a suit. The question in this suit related to a sum of money paid into Court under the provisions of The London Dock Company's Act, 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 47, and as to which, on the 8th of July 1841, an order had been made by the Master of the Rolls, 1324 RUBERY V. MORRIS 1 MAC. 4 0. 411. directing a reference for the purpose of ascertaining the party [411] entitled to the fund. This order contained no direction for the production of deeds, or for the-examination of witnesses, or of the parties, before the Master. Various proceedings having taken place under this order, but no report having been made, James Hyde, and Sarah his wife, the present Plaintiffs, presented a. petition, praying for a transfer of the fund, and for a reference to enable them to establish their right, with directions for the production of documents, and the examination of parties. The Master of the Rolls having, on the 15th January 1848, dismisaed this petition (11 Beav. 78), the Petitioners filed their bill on the 23d June 1849, for a purpose similar to that sought by their petition. Upon the application,, however, of the principal Defendant, Thomas Edwards, the Master of the Rolls, on the 5th November 1849, ordered all proceedings in the suit so instituted to be stayed till a fortnight after the Master's report should have been made under the existing reference, with liberty to the Plaintiffs to apply to discharge the order, if any delay occurred in the Master's office. From this decision the Plaintiffs now appealed to the Lord Chancellor. Mr. Roundell Palmer and Mr. Elderton appeared for the Plaintiffs, in support of the appeal motion. One of the grounds upon which they urged that the proceedings in the suit ought not to lie stayed was, that the existing order of reference was insufficient, in consequence of the omissions above stated, and that therefore the Plaintiffs could not fairly bring their case before the Master. They referred to the following passage in the judgment of the Master of the Rolls, on occasion of dismissing the Plaintiffs' petition : " As [412] to directing the production of deeds and papers, and the examination of parties, the registrar informs me that it is not the practice of the Court to direct such production in orders of this description." (11 Beav. 80.) Mr. Bacon and Mr. Stevens appeared for the Defendant, but were not called upon by the Lord Chancellor. the lord chancellor expressed his concurrence in the course adopted by the Master of the Rolls, in staying the proceedings in the suit, and added-If the Plaintiffs, have any real cause of complaint, on the ground of delay, or otherwise, the Court will find the means of putting them right. The Act of Parliament under which these proceedings have been taken directs the Court to find out who are the parties entitled to this fund, and the Court has accordingly made an order directing the necessary inquiries for that purpose, which order is now in prosecution. I am informed that, as to the directions said to be omitted, it is the practice to insert them in orders of this kind, there being no distinction between an order made on a petition under an Act such as that in the present case, and an order made in a suit upon bill and answer. If, therefore, the Plaintiffs have anything to complain of, it is of the original order, not of the course now adopted by the Master of the Rolls. His Lordship then dismissed the application, and, with the consent of the Defendant, directed that the original order should be amended, by extending it to-the examination of parties and witnesses, and the production of documents.
English Reports Citation: 47 E.R. 1529
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 1 Mac. & G. 410; 41 E. R. 1323.
[552] hyde . edwards. Nov. 26, 1849. [S. C. 1 Mac. & G. 410; 41 E. E. 1323.] Where, upon petition, a reference is ordered to the Master to inquire what parties are entitled to a fund in Court arising from the purchase-money paid by a company in respect of land taken by them, the order should contain the same directions for the production of documents and the examination of the parties as if it had been made by decree in a suit. The object of this suit was, to ascertain who were the persons entitled to a fund which had been paid into Court by the London Dock Company, as part of the purchase-money for some land which had been taken by that company under the powers of their Act, and in which Anna Maria Betts was interested to the extent of one moiety. The Defendant had presented a petition, which was heard in July 1841, when the Master of the Eolls ordered a reference to the Master to inquire who were the heirs at law of Anna Maria Betts, and who was the heir ex parte maternd of her father, James Prince. That petition did not contain any direction for the production of deeds and papers, or the examination of the parties : and upon the question being afterwards brought to the attention of the Master of the Rolls, upon another petition, his Lordship stated, that he was informed by the registrar that it was not the practice of the Court to insert such directions in orders of this description made on petition. (In re The London Dock Company, 11 Beav. 78.) This suit was afterward instituted, and the Defendant obtained an order from the Master of the Eolls to stay further proceedings in it, until the Master should have made his report, under the reference ordered on the petition, [553] the object of that petition and of this suit being of the same kind : and the question now came before the Lord Chancellor upon a motion on behalf of the Plaintiffs to discharge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McVeagh (Deceased), Re the estate of; McVeagh v Croall
...production, which was refused by the Master of the Bolls. Hyde then filed a bill, a demurrer in which was overruled by Lord Langdale (12 Beav. 160); but an attempt to stay proceedings in the suit was successful (12 Beav. 253). Lord Cottenham affirmed this decision, but at the same time held......