Oldfield v Cobbett
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 July 1855 |
| Date | 11 July 1855 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 721
ROLLS COURT
[563] oldfield?;. cobbett. July 10, 11, 1855. The Plaintiff instituted a creditors' suit against the executor. The estate was accordingly administered, and a decree was made on further directions. The executor afterwards brought actions against the Plaintiff, for debts alleged to be due from him to the testator, which the Court restrained by injunction. The Plaintiff having died, the Defendant moved that the suit might be revived by his representatives, or, in default, that the injunctions might be dissolved. The proceeding was held irregular, and the motion was refused with costs. The Defendant, Cobbett, was the executor of his father. The Plaintiff, a creditor, instituted this suit against him, on behalf, &c., for the administration of the estate; and, on motion before decree (27th of August 1855), the Defendant was restrained, by injunction, [564] from getting in the personal estate and effects of the testator, and a receiver was appointed. The usual decree was afterwards made for the administration of the estate, and (as it was stated) the injunction and receiver were thereby continued. The Master made his report. Exceptions were taken thereto, which were overruled, and a decree on further directions was made in 1841, but the injunction and receiver were not thereby continued. (5 Beav. 132.) The Defendant Cobbett afterwards brought an action against the Plaintiff Oldfield, to recover 5000, which, as he alleged, was due from the Plaintiff to the testator's estate. On the 7th of June 1842 an injunction was granted to restrain the action. (5 Beav. 132.) The Defendant repeated the same proceedings, and a further injunction was granted on the 28th of July 1843. (6 Beav. 515.) The Plaintiff Oldfield afterwards died. The Defendant, in person, now moved that the injunction granted on the 7th of June 1842, and that granted on the 28th of July 1843, might be dissolved, unless the suit should be revived by his representatives within such time as the Court should appoint. He cited Lee v. Lee (1 Hare, 617); Daniel's Prac. (p. 1427 (2d edit.)). the master of the rolls. I will give judgment to-morrow. July 11. the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. The authorities cited in support of thia motion are in-[565]-applicable ; this is quite a different case. Here a decree was made for the administration of the testator's estate; and it appears, by 722 KAY V. SMITH 20 BBAV. B6. the report of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smithwick v Smithwick
...6 Sim. 585. Hoby v. AllenUNK 15 Jur. 835; S. C., 20 Law Jour. 199. Briggs v. ChamberlainENR 11 Hare, 73, note a. Tuer v. TurnerENR 20 Beav. 563. Montgomery v. Waring 6 Ir. Chan. Rep. 533. Jesse v. Bennett 6 D., M. & G. 609. CHANCERY REPORTS. 181 costs of this motion and order ; but, as he i......