Makepeace v Haythorne
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1827 |
| Date | 01 January 1827 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 38 E.R. 797
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 5 L. J. Ch. (O. S.) 147.
[244] makepeace v. haythorne. April 1827. [S.C. 5L. J.Ch. (0. S.)147.] A plea, shewing that one of two Plaintiffs has no interest in the matters of the suit, is a good defence to the whole bill. The bill was filed by Henry Makepeace, and by James Small on behalf of himself and the other creditors of two partnerships, which had traded under the firms of Clarkes and Makepeace, and Clarke and Makepeace. The bill stated that the Plaintiff Henry Makepeace and John Clarke the younger entered, in 1817, into partnership with John Clarke the elder ; that, in July 1819, John Clarke the elder died, having, by his will, devised his freehold messuages, workshops, and premises unto Haythorne, John Clarke the younger, and Latcham, upon trust to permit and suffer his partners, John Clarke the younger and Henry Makepeace, to continue in possession of his warehouse and other premises at a yearly rent; that the executors proved the will; that, in September 1821, an agreement was entered into, under which the partnership was carried on between John Clark. the younger and Henry Makepeace ; that, in May 1824, John Clarke the younger, with a view to exclude Henry Makepeace from the business, and to appropriate it to himself, caused a distress to be levied on the partnership premises, under which John Russ Grant was put into possession of the partnership property ; that John Buss Grant had from that time continued in the possession and management of it; that, in June 1824, John Clarke the younger died, having appointed Haythorne and Latcham his executors ; that the Plaintiff Small was a creditor of both partnerships ; and that certain sums were due to Makepeace from the estate of Clarke the [245] elder. The material part of the prayer was, that the rights and interests of Makepeace in the partnerships might be declared and ascertained, and that the estates of the Clarkes might be applied in a due course of administration. John Russ Grant was a Defendant. To this bill the Defendants Haythorne and Latcham put in a plea, in bar to the whole of the discovery and relief. The plea, after the usual averments with respect to the trading, the petitioning creditor's debt, the act of bankruptcy, and the issuing of the commission, stated, that, in June 1824, Henry Makepeace had been declared a bankrupt; that his estate and effects had been assigned to John Russ Grant, who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanger and Others v Gardiner and Others
...; Exeter C'ollege v. Eowland, 6 Maddock, 94; Aylwin v. Bray, in timaU v. Attwood, 2 Younge & Jervis, 517, 518; Makepeace, v. Hayilwrne, 4 Russell, 244; King of Spain [125] v. Machculo, Ihid. 225 ; Dunn v. Dunn, 2'Simons, 329 ; Bill v. Ountan, 2 My hie & Keen, 503, 512 ; Denten v. Davy, 1 Mo......
-
Corballis v The Company of Undertakers of The Grand Canal
...512. Glynn v. SoaresENR 3 My. & K. 450, 470. Sigel v. PhelpsENR 7 Sim. 239. Hunter v. RichardsonENR 6 Madd. 89. Makepeace v. HaythorneENR 4 Russ. 244. King of Spain v. MachadoENR 4 Russ. 225, 560. Cuff v. PlatellENR 4 Russ. 242. Delondre v. ShawENR 2 Sim. 237. CASES IN EQUITY. 29 1840. Equi......
-
Wake v Parker
...defence, this J KEEN 68. WAKE V. PARKER 553 demurrer must be allowed : King of Sjiain v. Maehado (4 Russ. 560), Makepeace v. Sayihome (4 Russ. 244), Glyn v. Soares (3 Mylne & Keen, 450). It follows as a necessary consequence of the rule as to misjoinder of Plaintiffs, that the husband canno......
-
Harrington and Milligan v Long
...in support of that proposition :-The King of Spain v. Machatlo (4 Russ., 225); Ouff v. Platell (4 Russ., 242) Makepeace v. Haytliarne (4 Russ., 244). the master of the rolls [Sir John Leach]. There is no principle which prevents a person from assigning his interest in a debt after the insti......