Laurie v Crush
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 January 1863 |
| Date | 17 January 1863 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 55 E.R. 46
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 7 L. T. 662; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 453; 11 W. R. 275; 1 N. R. 255. Overruled, Eyre v. Brett, 1865, 34 Beav. 441.
[117] laurie v. crush. Jan. 17, 1863. [S. C. 7 L. T. 662; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 453; 11 W. R. 275 ; 1 N. R. 255. Overruled, Eyre v. Brett, 1865, 34 Beav. 441.] A sole Plaintiff died, having devised the estate, which was the subject of the suit. Held, that the devisee was riot entitled to the common order to revive under the 15 & 16 Viet. c. 86, s. 52. This was a motion, under the 15 & 16 Viet. c. 86, s. 52, for an order to revive the suit under the following circumstances:-This was a mortgagees' suit and was instituted in 1859, and a decree obtained in August in the same year. In December 1861 the Plaintiff, Sir Peter Laurie, died, having devised the mortgaged estate to his nephew, Northall Laurie. Mr. G. N. Colt, for the devisee, in support of the application, said there was a difference of opinion in the other Courts as to whether such an order was, under these circumstances, proper, or whether a bill must be filed. That the Vice-Chancellor Wood in Dendy v. Dendy (5 W. R. 221), and the Vice-Chancellor Kindersley in Wil-[UB]-liams v. Williams (9 W. R. 296), had held that the Act did not apply, and that an original bill in the nature of a bill of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bedford v Bedford
...He referred to Dendy v. Dewly (5 W. Rep. 221); Williams v. Williams (9 W. Rep. 296); Jackson v. Ward (1 Giff. 30); and Laurie v. Crush (32 Beav. 117): see also Eyre v. Brett (34 Beav. 441); and Earl Durham v. Leganl (Ibid. 442); and observed that a decree having been made, the order now ask......
-
Eyre v Brett
...before the Court by the common order, under the 15 & 16 Viet. c. 86, s. 52, and that a supplemental bill waa unnecessary. Laurie v. Crush (32 Beav. 117) overruled. This suit related to real and personal estate. The sole Plaintiff died before decree, having devised the estate to A. E. in fee......