Maclaren v Stainton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 December 1852 |
| Date | 05 December 1852 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 786
ROLLS COURT
S. C. in House of Lords, 5 H. L. C. 416; 10 E. R. 961; 24 L. J. Ch. 620; 3 W. R. 597. As to stay of concurrent proceedings, see M'Henry v. Lewis, 1882, 22 Ch. D. 405; Hyman v. Helm, 1883, 24 Ch. D. 534; The Mannheim [1897], P. 13; Christian v. Christian, 1898, 78 L. T. 86; R. S. C. 1883, Ord. 72, r. 2. As to questions of domicile and service, see Newby v. Van Oppen, 1872, L. R. 7 Q. B. 295; Nutter v. Messageries Maritimes, 1885, 54 L. J. Q. B. 528; Ewing v. Orr-Ewing, 1885, 10 App. Cas. 468 (n.); Haggin v. Comptoir d'Escompte, 1889, 23 Q. B. D. 523; The Princess Clmentine [1897], P. 18; R. S. C. 1883, Ord. 9, r. 8. For subsequent proceedings, see 18 Beav. 146; 21 Beav. 152; 24 Beav. 346; 27 Beav. 460; 3 De G. F. & J. 202; 45 E. R. 855; L. R. 4 Eq. 448; L. R. 11 Eq. 382.
[279] maclaren v. stainton.(!) Dee. 4, 5, 1852. [S. C. in House of Lords, 5 H. L. C. 416; 10 E. E. 961; 24 L. J. Ch. 620; 3 W. R. 597. As to stay of concurrent proceedings, see M'Henry v. Lewis, 1882, 22 Ch. D. 405 ; Hyman v. Helm, 1883, 24 Ch. D. 534; The Manntteiiii [1897], P. 13; Christian v. Christian, 1898, 78 L. T. 86; R. S. C. 1883, Ord. 72, r. 2. As to questions of domicile and service, see Newby v. Van Oppen, 1872, L. R. 7 Q. B. 295; Nutter v. Messageries Maritimes, 1885, 54 L. J. Q. B. 528; Swing v. Orr-Ewing, 1885, 10 App. Gas. 468 (n.); Haggin v. Cmnptoir d'Escompte, 1889, 23 Q. B. D. 523; The Princess Clf/mentme [1897], P. 18; R. S. C. 1883, Ord. 9, r. 8. For subsequent proceedings, see 18 Beav. 146 ; 21 Beav. 152; 24 Beav. 346; 27 Beav. 460; 3 De G. F. & J. 202; 45 E. R. 855; L. R. 4 Eq. 448; L. R. 11 Eq. 382.] After a decree for administration, a Scotch corporation, trading in England, and having warehouses and assets there, proceeded in Scotland against the testator's Scotch assets. Held, that this Court had jurisdiction to restrain it, and that the case was a proper one for its interference. Service of a notice of motion on a Scotch company, not party to the suit, at its office in London, held good. A Plaintiff applying for an injunction should fairly state his case, both where the application is ex parte, and where, on notice, the opponent does not appear; but the Court does not hold him so strictly to the rule in the latter case as in the former. The testator, Henry Stainton, died in December 1851. He had considerable real and personal property both in Scotland and England. At his death he was domiciled and resident in England, where he had for many years been the agent of the Carron Company. The Plaintiffs, Maclaren and Dawson, and the Defendant, H. T. Stainton, were the acting trustees and executors of his will in England. The Defendant Stainton alone had proved his will in Scotland. The Plaintiffs instituted this suit on the 8th of May 1852, for the administration of the estate, and they obtained the ordinary decree for taking the accounts, and for ascertaining and paying the testator's debts. A debt of about 100,000 was claimed to be due from the testator by the Carron Company, of which he was the English manager, and a shareholder to the extent of 80,000. The Carron Company was a Scotch corporation, incorporated in 1773 by Royal charter, under the union seal of Scotland, for manufacturing iron at Carron in Scotland. It had offices, warehouses and agents in London and Liverpool, and goods and property there. After the decree, and on the 29th October 1852, the Carron Company commenced proceedings in [280] Scotland against the trustees and executors of the will, for the recovery of their debt, and they obtained letters of inhibition and arrestment, which, in effect, attached the testator's personal estate in Scotland, and prevented the sale of his Scotch real estate, except subject to the company's claim, and it rendered both the real and personal estate available for payment of the debt of the Carron Company, when established by decree. But any other creditor might institute a process of " multiplepoinding and exoneration," by which, in effect, the estate would be administered, and the claims of all the creditors provided for. Upon this, the (1) dates. 1851. Death. 1852. May. Decree in England. 1852. Oct. Proceedings in Scotland. 1852. Nov. Injunction. UBEAV.m. MACLAREN V. STAINTON 787 Plaintiffs, after some correspondence, served 'the manager of the Carrou Company, at their office in London, with a notice of a motion for an injunction to restrain the company from proceeding in their Scotch suit. The company were not parties to the English suit, and did not appear on the motion, whereupon the injunction was granted on 15th of November 18513, in their absence. A motion was now made, on behalf of the Carron Company, to dissolve the injunction; or that the company might proceed, so far only as might be necessary for tie purpose of having their claim adjudicated on, and of obtaining security to answer what might be found due to them. Mr. Willcock and Mr. Cotton, in support of the motion. First, the Court has no jurisdiction to grant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Perpetual Trustees Executors and Agency Company of Tasmania Ltd v Walker
-
Arab Bank Ltd v Ng Soo Jin Others (Bank of Montreal third party)
...on the other party who does not appear, the first party can with impugnity mislead the court. As Romilly MR stated in Maclaren v Stainton 51 ER 786 at p 790, `But if the respondent does not appear and the plaintiff, taking advantage of the absence, entirely misleads the court, then I think ......
-
Sainton v Carron Company
...R. 466; 2 W. R. 176. See Yeatman v.Yeatman, 1877, 7 Ch. D. 215. For other proceedings, see 16 Beav. 279, and the references in the note 51 E. R. 786. [146] stainton v. the carbon company and others. Nov. 11, 12, 1853 ; Jan. 17, 1854. [S. C. 23 L. J. Ch. 299; 18 Jur. 137; 2 Eq. R. 466; 2 W. ......
-
Evans v Coventry
...to, Sibson v. Edg-[$16]-worth (2 De G. & Sm. 73); King v. Malcott (9 Hare, 692); Hudson v. Maddism (12 Sim. 416); Maclaren v. Stainton (16 Beav. 279); Claitgh v. Ratdiffe (1 De G. & Sm. 164); Beaumont v. Meredith (3 Ves. & B. 180); Richardson v. Larpent (2 Y. & C. C. C. 507); Richardson v. ......