Nathaniel Bayley, Appellant; Bryan Edwards, Respondent
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 14 March 1792 |
| Date | 14 March 1792 |
| Court | Privy Council |
English Reports Citation: 36 E.R. 1029
PRIVY COUNCIL.
See Mutrie v. Binney, 1887, 35 Ch. D. 619.
[703] nathaniel bayley, Appellant; bryan edwards, Respondent. Privy Council. Uth March 1792. [See Mutrie v. Binney, 1887, 35 Oh. D. 619.] 1. A suit pending in England is1 not a good plea in bar to a subsequent suit in the plantations for the same matter. 2. A Defendant after a decree to account, though called an actor in the suit, yet is not prevented becoming Plaintiff in another suit for the same matter. In 1776 Nathaniel Bayley filed a bill in the Court of Chancery in England against Bryan Edwards, and several other persons, for an account from Bryan Edwards of the personal estate of the testator, Zachary Bayley, and of the produce of ZacharyBayley's real estates during his possession for five years under the testator's will; subsequent to which term of five years, Nathaniel Bayley and Bryan Edivards were entitled in moieties to estates of inheritance in this property. In 1777 and 1782 a reference took place as to some branches of the account, and an award was made upon inspection and investigation of papers and accounts in Jamaica. In 1784 a decree to account was made in England, but not prosecuted. In 1787 Bryan Edwards and Nathaniel Bayley, being both in Jamaica, Bryan, Edwards filed a bill in the Court of Chancery there, touching the same property, praying inter alia to have the account adjusted on the footing of the balance awarded, and for an injunction to restrain Nathaniel Bayley, who had bought in some outstanding debts of the testator, from suing Bryan Edwards pending the suit in Jamaica. [704] To this bill Nathaniel Bayley pleaded the decree in England, and averred that it was pending, and for the same matters. The plea was overruled by the Chancellor of Jamaica, and the Defendant appealed. This case stood over several times, Lord Camden conceiving the question to be of great importance to the jurisdiction of the mother country and colonies. For the Appellant, Hardinge and Sewell cited Cann v. Cann (1 P. W. 723), Johnson v. Northey (2 Vern. 407 ; Prec. in Cha. 134), Levington v. Woton (1 Rep. in Cha. 28), and Roberts v. Hartley (1 Bro. C. C. 56). They insisted, 1, that setting down the plea to be argued admitted the two suits to be for the same purpose, or else it should have been replied to and referred to the Master ; Urlin v. Hudson (1 Vern. 332). And 2, that the English suit was plead-able in bar of the Jamaica suit, upon the authority of Wells v. Lord Antrim, cited in Foster v. Vassal (3 Atk. 588), which in the register's book stands thus : Wells et Ux. v. Earl of Antrim, 16th December 1717. The matter upon the plea put in by the defendant to the plaintiff's bill coming this present day to be argued before the Right Honourable and Lord High Chancellor, &c., in the presence of counsel learned on both sides, and the defendant's plea being, that the plaintiffs, in January 1714, did exhibit their bill in the Court of Exchequer in Ireland against him and Dennis Dalley, and Thomas Windham, for a discovery and relief, touching the same matters for which the plaintiff hath brought [705] his bill in this court, and that the defendant, the Earl of Antrim, hath put in his answer to the said bill exhibited in the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, and the cause is now...
To continue reading
Request your trial