Joynes v Statham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 October 1746 |
| Date | 29 October 1746 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 1023
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Clinan v. Cooke, 1802, 1 Sch. Lef. 38.
3ATK. 388. BERNEY V. EYRE 1023 Case 128.-berney versus eyre, July 22, 1746. [See Boyse v. Bossborough, 1853, Kay, 99.] Where a devisee brings a bill merely in perpetuam rei memoriam, and the heir at law only cross-examines the witnesses, he is entitled to his costs, but if to encounter the will he shall not. The only material question upon the rehearing was, whether the heir at law is intitled to costs. Lord Hardwicke laid down the following general rules : That if a devisee brings a bill merely in perpetuam rei memoriam, and the heir at law does nothing more than cross-examine the witnesses, who are produced to confirm the will, he is intitled to his costs. (Bidulph v. Bidulph, 2 P. W. 285.) If he examines witnesses to encounter the will, then he shall not have his costs. This is, where the bill does not pray relief, or is not brought to a hearing. But when the cause is brought to a hearing, if the heir at law has an issue directed to try the will, and the will is established, as he has a right to be satisfied how he is disinherited, he shall have his costs. [388] H he sets up insanity, or any other disability against the person who made the will, and fails, he shall not have his costs. (Vide Webb v. Claverden, ante [Atk.], 2 vol. 424.) But it must be a very strong case, which will...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HM Attorney General and the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, Plaintiffs; Sir George Sitwell, Bart., Defendant
...purpose of carrying them into execution. In L'linan v. Cooke (1 Seh & L 39) Lord Redesdale, after adverting to a case (Joynet, v Statham, 3 Atk. 388), in which Lord Hardwicke was supposed to have sanctioned the doctrine now contended for, says: "There is a prior case, Walker v. Walker (2 At......
- Cambridge Antibody Technology Ltd v Abbott Biotechnology Ltd and Abbott Gesellschaft Mit Beschrankter Haftung & Company Kommanditgesellschaft
-
Lord Irnham against Child and Others
...parol evidence were cited, 1 Eq. Abr. 20, Maxwell's case.-Harvey v. Harvey, 2 Ch. Ca. 180.-Walker v. Walker, 2 Atk. 98.-Joynes v. Statham, 3 Atk. 388. (Vide 4 Bro. C. C. 518; and 6 Ves. 325, note.)-Fitz Gibbon, 213.-Lock v. Boult, before Lord Camden.-Vane v. Lord Barnard, Gilb. Rep. 6.- Mer......
-
Rich v Jackson
...evidence was admissible in this case, on the ground either of mistake or fraud. That Lord Hardwicke, in the case of Joynes v. Statham, 3 Atk. 388, had admitted parol evidence to connect an agreement upon this very subject.-That was a case in point, except as to the state of the parties, whi......