Nichols v Ward
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 March 1850 |
| Date | 09 March 1850 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 42 E.R. 55
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Hope v. Carnegie, 1868, L. R. 7 Eq. 261.
[139] lorton v. kingston. March 7, 1850. The Lord Chancellor refused to make an order for the service of a copy of the bill, under the terms of the 23d Order of the 26th August 1841, upon a Defendant in Ireland. Mr. Pearson now renewed an application, which had been refused by the Vice-Chancellor of England, for leave to serve a Defendant out of the jurisdiction in Ireland with the copy of an amended bill under the 23d Order of the 26th August 1841. By the 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 33, the Court may order service of subpoena and all subsequent process on Defendants in any part of the United Kingdom, and by [140] the 3 & 4 Viet, c. 94, the Court is empowered to make alterations in the forms of writs, &c., and in the pleadings and practice of the Court. a MAC. 40.140. NICHOLS V. WABD 55 The question was, whether the terms of the 23d Order of the 26th August 1841 were comprehensive enough to authorise the service of the copy of the bill on a Defendant out of the jurisdiction. the lord chancellor said that the Act of Parliament (2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 33), only authorised the service of a subpoena on a Defendant out of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ware v Regent's Canal Company
...for no less a period than one year and eight months; Graham v. The Birkenhead, Lancashire and Cheshire Junction Railway Company (2 Mac. & G. 140). With reference to the alleged unskilful execution of the works, no such point is raised by the bill, and the evidence would not sustain any such......