Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

Morris v Owen

Nominate Series English Reports Cited authorities 1 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date22 May 1813
Date22 May 1813
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 35 E.R. 203

HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY

Morris
and
Owen

morris v. owen. May 22, 1813. Order to amend the Bill, not served or drawn up, cannot prevent the Motion to dismiss for want of Prosecution. A Motion to dismiss the Bill for want of Prosecution was resisted on the Ground, that the Plaintiff had obtained an Order to amend Six Months ago ; though it was not served, or even drawn up. Mr. Bell, for the Defendant: Mr. Sidebottom, for the Plaintiff. The Lord Chancellor [Eldon] at first intimated, that the Course was a Motion, 204 CLOWES V. HIGGINSON 1 V. & B. 524. that the Plaintiff should draw up his Order, and amend within a Week; or that the Order to amend should be discharged : but, having consulted the Register (Mr. Croft), said, that if a Plaintiff, having obtained an Order to amend for the Purpose of keeping his Bill in Court, did not get that Order drawn up and served...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT