Kinder v Forbes
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 May 1840 |
| Date | 16 May 1840 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 48 E.R. 1277
ROLLS COURT
[BOS] kinder v. forbes. April 23, May 16, 1840. An order that service of a subpoena to appear and answer upon the Defendant's partners at the house of business, the Defendant himself being abroad, Held, under the circumstances, to be regular. The bill in this cause was filed to set aside certain mortgage securities held by the Defendant, and to prevent the further receipt by him of several annual sums comprised therein, amounting to 225, which, by an order made in another suit, had been directed to be paid to him by the receiver in that cause. The Defendant was a practising solicitor, in partnership with Messrs, Hale, Boys, & Austen, in Ely Place, but he had gone abroad during the last year, and was at present in Italy, and had no dwelling-house in this country. The transaction in respect of which this suit was instituted was not a partnership transaction, but the annual sums comprising the ,225 had been received for the Defendant by his partners during his absence from the receiver. The Defendant's partners having declined accepting service of the subpcena to appear and answer; the Court on the 25th of March 1840, on the motion of the Plain-[B04]-tiff, ordered, that service of a subpcena to appear and answer the Plaintiffs bill on Messrs. Hale & Co., at Ely Place, should be deemed good service on the Defendant. The Defendant having agreed to enter a conditional appearance with the registrar, now moved to discharge the order. Mr. C. P. Cooper and Mr. James Russell, in support of the motion. The order which has been made ex parte is not authorised by the practice of the Court; there are, it is true, two authorities in its favour, viz., Carter v. De Brune (1 Diek. 39), where service of a subpcena, on a person who transacted matters under a letter of attorney from the Defendant, was ordered to be good service; and Hyde v. Foriter (Ib. 102), where an order was made directing service on the agent and factor in England of the Defendant living abroad to be good service; but the authority of these cases was expressly denied by Lord Redesdale in Smith v. The Hibernian Mine Company (1 Scha & Lef. 238); in that case a Defendant residing out of the jurisdiction had given a power of attorney to P., to act for him in the management of his affairs, and the Court refused to allow substituted service of a subpoena to appear and answer on P.; Lord Eedesdale saying, " I think the Legislature has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnston v Todd
...Marshall, the testator, at the time of his death, which took place in or about the month of December 1820." (1) See Kinder v. Forbes, 2 Beav. 503; Weymmth v. Lambert, 3 Beav. 333; Lane v. Hardwcke, 5 Beav. 222; Holhouse v. Courtney, 12 Sim. 140. BBEAV.SM. CATTELL V. SIMONS 631 Peter Marshal......
-
Brunswick (Duke of) v King of Hanover
...process, as in Viveash v. Becker (3 Maule and Sel. 284), [14] Davidson v. The Marchioness of Hastings (2 Keen, 509), and Kinder v. Forbes (2 Beav. 503); but Lord Lyndhurst refused the application, observing that " the defendant is a Peer of the realm, has taken the oath of allegiance to the......
-
Noad v Backhouse
...appear and answer on Messrs. B. & B. might be deemed good service on the Defendant. They cited Anon. (2 Vez. sen. 23); Kinder v. Forbes (2 Beav. 503); Smith v. The Hibernian Mining. Company (1 Sch. & Lef. 238); English v. Kendrick {& Madd. 205). [The Vice-Chancellor referred to a case of Ro......
-
Webb v Salmon
...and that they had refused so to do. He cited, in support of the application, English v. Hendrick (6 Madd. 205), Kinder v. Forbes (2 Beav. 503). His Honor said there was not a sufficient statement of th'e recent communications with Messrs. Bayley to justify the substituted service upon them,......