Padwick v Platt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 March 1849 |
| Date | 10 March 1849 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 912
ROLLS COURT
912 PADWICK V. PLATT UBEAV.508. [503] padwick v. platt. March 6, 9, 10, 1849. A married woman being entitled to a share of the produce of the estate of a testator, joined her husband in selling and assigning it to a purchaser. The assignors and assignee having joined in a suit for its recovery, it was dismissed at the hearing for miajoinder; but the objection not having been previously taken, no costs were given. The testator devised and bequeathed his real estates to the Defendants, Platt and Bulbeck, to sell and convert, and to hold the produce on certain trusta, for the benefit of his widow during widowhood, and after her death or marriage, in trust for his children equally. The testator died in 1832, leaving three children, James, Caroline and Mary Ann. The widow died in 1841 ; and in 1842 Mary Ann married Mr. Windsor. Caroline died, and administration of her estate was granted to her sister, Mrs. Windsor. Afterwards, on the llth of May 1844, Mr. and Mrs. Windsor sold and assigned to the Plaintiff Padwick the moiety to which they or one of them, in right of Mrs. Windsor, were entitled by virtue of the testator's will, and as next of kin of Caroline, or otherwise howsoever. Padwick, James, the son, and Mr. and Mrs. Windsor, filed this bill against Platt and Bulbeck, the trustees and executors, praying for an account and administration of the estate, and seeking to make the Defendants responsible for certain alleged breaches of trust in its administration. The Defendants, by their answer, took no objection to the misjoinder of Plaintiffs. Mr. Eoupell and Mr. B. Gaselee, for the Plaintiffs. [604] Mr. Turner and Mr. Piggott, for the Defendants. The record is so framed that no decree can be made, for there is a misjoinder of the Plaintiffs. Mr. and Mrs. Windsor, after their assignment to Padwick, ceased to have any interest, and, therefore, they cannot join as Co-plaintiffs in a bill to recover that to which they have no title. The point has been set at rest by the decision of the House of Lords in Fulham v. M'Carthy (1 H. Lds. Ca. 703), where it was held, that the assignor and assignee of a distributive share of an intestate's estate could not join as Co-plaintiffs in a suit to recover it; and the bill was, on that ground alone, dismissed with costs. The distinction was there taken between an assignment of a legal and an equitable interest; in the former, the legal interest remains in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Henry Persse, - Appellant; Dudley Persse and Others (his second Wife, and the Children of his Two Marriages), - Respondents
...second settlement, and the bill must be dismissed. Richardson v. Nixon, 2 So. and Lat. 250 ; S.C. 6, Ir. Eq. Rep. 335 ; Padwick v. Platt, 11 Beav. 503 ; Fvlham v. M'Carthy, 1 H. L. Cas. 703. " Mr. Martley for the Plaintiff.-Although to make the limitation that of an estate tail, there must ......
-
The Right Hon. JOHN RICHARDS, one of the Barons of HM Court of Exchequer, CAROLINE RICHARDS, Widow, CAROLINE MARIA RICHARDS, otherwise WOODHOUSE, and another, v CROASDAILE MOLONY, HENRY MOLONY and Others
...& Lef. 147. Prodgers v. LanghamENR 1 Sid. 133. Spackman v. TimbrellENR 8 Sim. 253. Salmon v. GreenENR 11 Beav. 453. Padwick v. PlattENR 11 Beav. 503. Carey v. GoodingeENR 3 Bro. C. C. 111. Berry v. Usher 11 Ves. 90; et vide Willock v. Dargan, 1 Ir. Chan. Rep. 39. Pritchard v. LangherENR 2 V......
-
Persse v Persse
...and PERSSE. Abraham v. Twigg Cro. Eliz. 478. Richardson v. NixonUNKUNK 2 J. & Lat. 250; S. C. 6 Ir. Eq. Rep. 335. Padwick v. PlattENR 11 Beav. 503. Fulham v. M'CarthyENR 1 House of Lords Cases, 703. Beresford's caseUNK 7 Rep. 135. Shelley v. Lady Earsfield 1 Ch. Rep. 110. Saunders v. Lord A......