Makepeace v Rogers
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judgment Date | 25 March 1865 |
Date | 25 March 1865 |
Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 46 E.R. 1070
BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES.
S. C. 34 L. J. Ch. 396; 11 Jur. (N. S.), 314l; 12 L. T. 221; 13 W. R. 566. See St. Aubyn v. Smart, 1867, L. R. 5 Eq. 189.
[649] makepeace v. rogers. Before the Lords Justices. March 25, 1865. [S. C. 34 L. J. Ch. 396 ; 11 Jur. (N. S.), 314; 12 L. T. 221 ; 13 W. R. 566. See St. Aubyn v. Smart, 1867, L. R. 5 Eq. 189.] A landowner may maintain a suit in equity against the agent and manager of his estates, if the object of such suit is cither to obtain an account (and in that case allegations of fraud or special circumstances are unnecessary); or to obtain the delivery up by the agent of documents in his hands belonging to the landowner. Observations on Phillips v. Phillips, 9 Hare, 471. This was an appeal by the Defendant Robert Rogers from a decision of the Vice-Chancellor Sir John Stuart, overruling with costs the Appellant's demurrer to the bill for want of equity. The case made by the bill was in effect as follows :- The Respondent John Makepeace, the Plaintiff in the suit, was a landowner and funded proprietor. The bill in its 2d paragraph alleged that in 1859 the Respondent had appointed the Appellant to be the agent and manager of the Respondent's real estates at Bracknell in Berkshire, and at Bromley in Kent, and of certain houses in London 4DEQ.J.&8.WO. MAKEPEACE V. ROGERS 1071 belonging to the Respondent, with authority to receive the Respondent's rents of the said estates and houses ; and that the Respondent had given the Appellant a power of attorney to receive the dividends and interest of certain Bank stock and other stocks, funds, shares and securities belonging to the Respondent; that the Appellant had acted as such agent and manager of the Respondent's aforesaid estates and houses, and from time to time received the rents thereof, and from time to time received the dividends and interest of certain Bank stock and other stocks, funds, shares and securities, or of such of the said estates, houses and other property aforesaid as from time to time remained unsold, down to the determination of the Appellant's employment by the Respondent at the end of 1863. [660] The bill then charging in effect that the Appellant had had almost uncontrolled authority in the management of the Respondent's estates, houses and other property aforesaid, and had by his directions sold certain timber on the estates and also divers parts of the estates, houses and other property...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
DHL International GmbH Applicant/Claimant v Marcel Hanley D/BA Superior Services 1st Respondent/1st Defendant Superior Services L & A 2nd Respondents/2nd Defendant [ECSC]
...his agent, rests upon the fiduciary relationship existing between them. In support of this contention she referred to-Makepiece v Roger (1865) 34 L J. 3962Yasuda Finance Mutual Investment v Ryan3 20 Rule 41.2 (1)4 gives the Claimant an untrammelled right to make the application when it did ......