Lautour v Holcombe
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 June 1836 |
| Date | 03 June 1836 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 59 E.R. 31
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
For subsequent proceedings, see S. C. 11 Sim. 71.
Bankrupt. Fraud. Demurrer.
[74] murrell v. clapham. June 2, 1836. Next Friend. The next friend of the infant Plaintiff was insolvent, and had been indemnified from the costs of the suit; and for those reasons the Defendant moved that the proceedings in the suit might be stayed until the next friend was changed or had given security for costs. Motion refused. Motion by the Defendants that the proceedings in the suit might be stayed until the next friend of the Plaintiff (who was an infant) was changed, or had given security for the costs of the suit. The motion was supported by an affidavit stating that the next friend was insolvent, and that he had refused to act as next friend until he had been indemnified from the costs of the suit by some person whose name was not disclosed, and that he had declared that he did not consider himself responsible for the costs. Mr. Knight, in support of the motion. Mr. 0. Anderdon, contra, said that, in an infant's suit, the poverty of the next friend was no reason for staying the proceedings in the suit or for appointing a new next friend. Davenport v. Davenport (1 Sim. & Stu. 101); Fellows v. Barrett (1 Keen, 119). 75] Mr. Knight, in reply. In Fellows v. Barrett, the next friend was the mother e infant, and, therefore, she was justified in taking up the case of the infant; but, in this case, there is no connexion between the infant and his next friend. Poverty does not prevent a party from suing in his own right; but it is different where he comes forward as the next friend of an infant: as appears by the cases referred to in the note to Davenport v. Davenport. The next friend in this case is not, really and in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Major v Aukland
...either improperly dealt with the estate (Borell v. Damn (2 Hare, 440)) or colluded with the debtors to the estate : Lautour v. Holcombe (8 Sim. 76), Sarion v. Jayne (7 Sim. 24). The allegation that the assignee had declined to sue for the legacy due to the insolvent was supported by the app......
-
Borell v Dann
...Wright (6 Id. Ill), Barton v. Tattersall (1 E. & M. 237), Barton v. Jayne (1 Sim. 25), Kaye v. Fosbrocike (8 Sim. 28), Lautour v. Hokombe (8 Sim. 76), Tyers v. Stunt (7 Scott, 349), Yewens v. Robinson (11 Sim. 105), Earl of Aldborough v. Trye (7 Cl. & Fin. 436). 184 BOEELL V. DANN 2 HAKE 44......
-
Wearing v Ellis
...a bill was filed by a bankrupt and contained an allegation that all the debts were paid a demurrer was overruled, Lautour v. Holcombe (8 Sim. 76). It is also to be observed that the insolvency in the present case is not under the 1 & 2 Viet. c. 110 but under the 5 & 6 Viet. c. 116 the first......
- Lautour v Holcombe