Norton v Hepworth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 March 1849 |
| Date | 14 March 1849 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 41 E.R. 1182
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
norton v. hepworth. Jan. 31, March 14, 1849. A Defendant to a bill of revivor had appeared to the original bill by his solicitor, but before the filing of the bill of revivor had gone out of the jurisdiction. The Court ordered that service of the subp&na to appear on the solicitor, should be good service on the Defendant. The Defendant in this case appeared to the original bill by his solicitor. A decree was obtained, and the suit was proceeding in the regular course when, by the death of the Plaintiff, a bill of revivor by his personal representative became necessary. The Defendant having in the meantime left England for America, and the Plaintiff to the bill of revivor being ignorant of his place of abode, a motion was made before the Vice-Chancellor Wigram that service of the subpoena upon the solicitor might be good service upon the Defendant. His Honour having, however, declined to make the order, the application was now renewed to the Lord Chancellor. the solicitor-general, in support of the motion, cited Weymouth v. Lambert (3 Beav. 333), Hobhouse v. Courtney (12 Sim. 140), Cooper v. Wood (5 Beav. 391), Murray v. Fipart (1 Phil. 521), Hornby v. Holmes (4 Hare, 306). He also drew the .attention of the Lord [65] Chancellor to some of the earlier cases, namely, Henderson v. Meggs (2 Bro. C. C. 127), Brown v. Lee (2 Dick. 545), Lee v. Warner (Id. 546), 1MAC. ft 0. 88. PIDDING V. FRANKS 1183 Geledneld v. Charnock (6 Ves. 171). He referred also to stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 82, s. 1, allowing substituted service on the receiver or steward of a Defendant out of the jurisdiction. March 14. the lord chancellor [Cottenham]. I consider this question as within the principle laid down by my predecessor Lord Lyndhurst, in Murray v. Vipart (1 Phil. 521). This case is, indeed, much stronger in favour of the substituted service. In that case, there was merely a letter from a solicitor stating that the absent Defendant had instructed him to do what was necessary in the matter on his behalf: in the present ease there is an actual representation and acting in the matter, by the solicitor having been the solicitor of the Defendant in the original suit; and the bill of revivor is in the same matter, and a necessary proceeding to give effect to that original suit. I therefore make the order for the substituted service. I must, however, observe that I fully concur with Lord Lyndhurst in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dawson v Brinckman
...G. & S. 694; Slcegg v. Simpson, 2 De G. & S. 455; Waller v. Darby, 6 Hare, 618 ; Hobhouse v. Courtney, 12 Sim. 140; Norton v. Eepworth, 1 Mac. & G. 54; and 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 82, ss. 1 and 2. 524 DAWSON V. BEINCKMAN , 3 DE G. & SM.-378. Lot 2 was described as situate at the south-east side o......