Kemp v Squire
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 February 1749 |
| Date | 10 February 1749 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 21 E.R. 218
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
kemp v. squire. 10 Feb. 1748. 1 Ves. 205, S. C. The solicitor of the plaintiff an infant, having suffered the bill to be dismissed for want of appearing at the hearing, and the order of dismission to be inrolled; the inrol-ment was set aside after the plaintiff had attained twenty-one, and he was at liberty to rehear the cause. The bill was brought in the name of the plaintiff an infant, to be relieved against a fraudulent assignment of his share of prize money; the plaintiff's solicitor served the defendant with a subposna to hear judgment, but neglected to instruct counsel [to appear for the plaintiff at the hearing (because, as he alledged, he could not get anything towards his bill of costs), in consequence of which the bill was dismissed. Three .months after, no caveat having been entered, the decree was inrolled, and set up by the defendant, in bar of the plaintiff's right: the plaintiff having attained the age of twenty-one, he applied to have the inrolment discharged, which Lord Hardwicke, C., granted, upon the plaintiff's paying the defendant the costs occasioned by his not appearing, [132] and the plaintiff was to be at liberty to rehear the cause. His Lordship cited Robsonv. Cranwell, 18th December 1731, S. P.
English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 984
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Drewry v. Thacker, 1818, 3 Swan. 534, n.
. . kemp v. squire, February 10, 1748-9. [See Drewry v. Thacker, 1818, 3 Swan. 534, n.] Inrolment of decree set aside under circumstances. Not, however, if made upon the merits. (Vide also 1 Ves. sen. 326, which is S. C. with 409, and Pickett v. Loggan, 5 Ves. 702. Vide also Charman v. Charman, 16 Ves. 114.)-S. 0. 1 Dick. 131. V[| Appleiaent p. 112.] The plaintiff continued an infant from the beginning of the suit till within six weeks of the pronouncing the decree ; and petitioned to have the inrolment of that decree set aside, because of the great neglect of the solicitor employed by him. (1 Ves. sen. 245 ; Prec. Chan. 134 ; 2 Ch. Rep. 128 ; 2 Vern. 409 ; 2 Wms. 73 ; 3 Wms. Ill, 371.) Lord Chancellor doubted, whether it was in the power of the court to open this inrolment on any terms ; for if it was, he was of opinion the court ought to do it on the circumstances of the case ; and desired precedents might be searched. Two were now procured; the one Bobson v. Cranwel (1 Dick. 61), December 8, 1731, before Lord 'King ; where a bill...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pearce v Lindsay
...v. Newdick (3 Mer. 13); (Uroom v. Stinton ('2 Ph. 384); Deimnan v. Wych (4 Myl. & Cr. 550); Anonymous (1 Ves. sen. 326); Kemp \. Squire (1 Ves. sen. 205). Mr. Rolt and Mr. E. R. Turner, for the Plaintiff. In the authorities it is assumed that the setting down of the appeal takes place simul......
-
De Manneville v De Manneville. [HIGH COURT of CHANCERY]
...Potts v. Norton, 2 P. Will. 110, n. Ex parte Hopkins, 3 P. Will. 152. Butler v. Freeman, Blake v. Leigh, Amb. 301, 300. Wilcox v. Drake, '2 Dick. (131 : corrected by the Reg. B. 1 Jac. 250, n. Powell v. Cleaver, 2 Bro. 0. 0. 499. Creuze v. Hunter, 2 Bro. C. C., Mr. Belt's notes; 2 Cox, 242 ......
-
Re Z Trust
...G.F. Ritchie for the trustee. Cases cited: (1) -Dixon v. RoweUNK(1876), 35 L.T. 548. (2) -Hyde v. ForsterENR(1748), 1 Dick. 132; 21 E.R. 218. (3) -Hyde v. HydeELR(1888), 13 P.D. 166; 59 L.T. 529, applied. (4) -Richardson v. Richardson, [1989] Fam. 95; [1989] 3 All E.R. 779, followed. (5) -R......
-
Cartwright v Green
...v. Campbell, 1875, L. R. 10 C. P. 247; R. v. Ashwell, 1885, 16 Q. B. D. 197. 9- '--t: ."C 412 CARTWRIGHT V. GREEN 8 VES. JUN. 406. (1) 1 Ves. sen. 205 ; 2 Ves. sen. 357. East India Company v. Neave, 5 Ves. 173 ; 11 Ves. 70; £ea. £Z. Plead. Eq. 44 ; 1 8wanst. 304, and the note. cartwhight . ......