Jackson v Leaf
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 March 1820 |
| Date | 06 March 1820 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 37 E.R. 362
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
jackson v? leaf. March 2, 4, 6, 1820. A legatee agreeing, after a decree for the administration of the estate obtained in Chancery by another legatee, to stop proceedings in a suit previously instituted by him in the Exchequer, allowed his costs up to the time of his having notice of that decree. Whether, after a decree for administration of assets, a legatee will be restrained on motion from suing for his legacy. Qu. Whether one court of equity will prevent a party from suing in another court of equity. Qu. Several legatees of J. Cockerill filed a bill in the Exchequer in Trinity term 181G, for the administration of his estate. The answers came in in Michaelmas term 1817, and in Hilary term 1819, the bill was amended, and parties added. The amendments were [230] answered in Trinity term 1819 ; but no decree had as yet been obtained. In the mean time, one of the residuary legatees commenced a suit in this court in January 1818 ; and a decree was pronounced in June 1819, directing the usual accounts, and the administration of the estate. A motion was now made on the part of Lfaf, the executor, for an injunction to restrain the Plaintiffs in the Exchequer suit, from any further proceedings in it. A similar motion had been made before the Vice Chancellor, and refused, with costs. Mr. Agar, Mr. Evans, and Mr. Duckioorth, in support of the motion. It is well established now, by the cases of Morrice v. Bank of England (Cas. Temp. Talb. 217 ; 4 Bro. P. C. 287), and Martin v. Martin (1 Fes. Sen. 211), and many subsequent cases of that class, that, after a decree for the general administration of a testator's effects. creditors are not to be permitted to proceed for the recovery of their debts, either in this court or at law; but can only avail themselves of the decree. The Court having by the decree assumed the controul of the fund, treats it as a proceeding in rem, which is to determine every question relating to it. It is on this principle, that suits by other creditor;- are put a stop to, and it applies equally to suits by legatees. 1 JAC. & W. 231. JACKSON V. LEAF 363 They are equally open to the objection of unnecessarily multiplying suits, and to the difficulties that might arise, from the clashing of different decrees, or different reports. It seems, indeed, a greater exercise of power, to restrain a cre-[231]-ditor than a legatee, as it takes from the former his right to...
To continue reading
Request your trial