Man v Ricketts
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 July 1844 |
| Date | 03 July 1844 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 49 E.R. 1152
ROLLS COURT
Affirmed, 1 Ph. 617; 41 E. R. 767.
[484] man v. ricketts. May 30, July 3, 1844. [[Affirmed, 1 Ph. 617; 41 E. R. 767.] A suit was instituted by the creditors' and official assignee of a bankrupt. The creditors' assignee died before decree, the official assignee died after decree, and a new official assignee being appointed, his name was, on motion, substituted under the 6 G. 4, c. 16, s. 67, as Plaintiff in the suit. This bill was filed by James Man, the creditors' assignee, and George Lackington, the official assignee, of a bankrupt. James Man died in March 1842, leaving 7BEAT.48I. STEACEY V. WESTON 1153 Lackington surviving him, and a decree was made in the cause on the 22d of February 1844. (Ante, 93.) In March 1844, after the decree had been pronounced, but before^ it had been entered, Lackington, the official assignee, who was then the sole Plaintiff, died, and on the 2d of April 1844 William Turquand was appointed official assignee in room of Lackington. A motion was now made under the 6 G. 4, c. 16, s. 67, and, 1 & 2 W. 4, c. 56, s. 24, that the name of Turquand might be henceforth substituted in the place of Man and Lackington, or of Lackington, in all further proceedings in, these causes, in the same manner as if Turquand had been originally a party thereto. By the sixty-seventh section of the 6 G. 4, c. 16, it is enacted, "That whenever an assignee shall die, or a new assignee or assignees shall be chosen as aforesaid, no action at law or suit in equity shall be thereby abated, but the Court in which any action or suit ia depending may, upon the suggestion of such death or removal and new choice, allow the name of the surviving or new assignee or assignees to be substituted in the place of the former; and such action or suit shall be prosecuted in the name or names of the said surviving or new assignee or assignees, in the same manner as if he or they had originally commenced the same." [4851 Mr. Hallett, in support of the motion. Mr. Kent, centra, for the Defendant T. B. Eicketts, objected to the form of the notice of motion, it not stating on whose behalf the motion was made, and contended that this section did not apply to the present case, and that a supplemental bill was necessary. the master of the rolls [Lord Langdale]. I think that the Vice-Chancellor of England has made orders of this description, and I will take an opportunity of looking at them. The Act provides that the estate shall vest in the new assignee, and that the new assignee may be substituted by "suggestion." I should have felt some difficulty as to the proper mode of giving operation to the direction as to the suggestion, but for the orders of the Vice-Chancellor of England. The unreported cases of Fort v. Western, Bourne v. Walker, and Nouaille v. Flight^ were afterwards referred to (see next page), and on the 3d of July the master of the rolls ordered the name of Turquand to be substituted in the place of Lackington deceased as a Plaintiff in the suit; and that the suit should be prosecuted in the same manner as if Lackington had been originally a Plaintiff therein. note.-See Mendham v. Robinson, 1 Myl. & K. 217; Bainbrigge v. Blair, Younge,, 386; Lloyd v. Waring, 1 Coll. 536.
English Reports Citation: 49 E.R. 998
ROLLS COURT
Affirmed with variation, sub nom. Ricketts v. Turguand, 1 H. L. C. 472; 9 E. R. 842. For other proceedings, see 7 Beav. 484; 9 Beav. 4. See Webb v. Byng, 1855, 1 Kay & J. 580; Whitfield. Langdale, 1875, 1 Ch. D. 61. Followed, Jennings v. Jennings, 1878, 1 L. R. Ir. 552. Distinguished, King v. King, 1884, 13 L. R. Ir. 531.
[93] man v. ricketts. Feb. 20, 21, 22, 1844. [Affirmed with variation, sub nom. Ricketts v. TuryimnA, 1 H. L. C. 472 ; 9 E. R. 842. For other proceedings, see 7 Beav. 484; 9 Beav. 4. See Webb v. Byng, 1855, 1 Kay & J. 580; Whitfieldv. Langdale, 1875, 1 Ch. D. 61. Followed, Jennings v. Jennings, 1878, 1 L. R. Ir. 552. Distinguished, King v. King, 1884, 13 L. R. Ir. 531.], An heir who disputes the will, may, by long acquiescence, lose his right to have its validity tried at law, upon an issue devisavit vel non, and where an heir had acted as devisee in trust under the will for a great number of years, he was refused an issue even to try the question of parcels. A will thirty years old, produced from the proper custody, proves itself. The thirty years are to be computed from the date of the will, and not from the death of the testator, and are calculated as at the time of its production. Heir at law being also the devisee in trust, misconducting his defence, ordered to pay all the costs of the suit. In the year 1802 the testator, George Crawford Ricketts, purchased a mansion and 166 acres of land adjoining thereto, which together were generally called and known as the Ashford Hall estate. [94] In 1804 the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyse v Rossborough
...v. Earl of Kingston (5 Cl. & P. 269, 343); to which even the heir, although he ordinarily obtains it, may lose his right: Man v. Bicketts (7 Beav. 93, 101; affirmed under the title of Eicketts v. Turquand, 1 H. L. Gas. 472); and a fortiori, therefore, the devisee. And, if the Court has a di......
-
Waters v Waters
...the will has been proved in the cause, to the satisfaction of the Court, this Court will not direct any issue. Thus, in Man v. Eicketts (7 Beav. 93), the Court refused an issue devisawt vel mow, Lord Langdale saying (Id. 101): "This is, therefore, a clear case of the will being proved, and ......
-
The Right Hon. GEORGE JAMES Earl of EGMONT, Petitioner; The Rev. Sir WILLIAM LIONEL DARELL, Bart., and Others, Respondents
...v. Pemberton 13 Ves. 290. Kerrick v. Bransby 7 Bro. P. C. (Tomlin's ed.) 437. Stacy v. Sprathy 2 De G. & Jo. 94. Man v. RickettsENR 7 Beav. 93. French v. Copinger 6 Ir. Chan. Rep. 568. Pike v. HoareENR 2 Ed. 182; S. C., Amb. 428. Gresly v. Mousley 4 De G. & Jo. 78. Charter v. TrevelyanENR 1......
-
Mcgregor and Another v Topham and Others
...establishes that the heir at law is not entitled, as of course, to have a second trial of an issue devisavit vel non, and Man v. Ricketts (7 Beav. 93), was a case where, from his own misconduct the heir at law lost the right to have the validity of a will, which he disputed, tried at law by......