Parker against Gerard, Baronet
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1754 |
| Date | 01 January 1754 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 157
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Giffard v. Williams, 1869, L. R. 8 Eq. 497.
Case 120.-parker against gerard, Baronet. [1754.] [See Giffard v. Williams, 1869, L. E. 8 Eq. 497.] Decree for a partition is matter of right.(l)-At the Eolls, 6th July 1754. [Lib. Eeg. 1753. B. fo. 514 a.] On bill for a partition : Sir Thomas Glerke, Master of the Eolls, said, That such a bill is matter of right, and there is no instance of not succeeding in it, but where [there] is not proof of title in plaintiff; and in the case of Cartwright v. Lord Bath (Cartwright v. Pultney, 2 Atk. 380), the Court gave leave, and time for the plaintiff to make out his title.(2) In the case of Mr. Baines (Warner v. Baines, post, 589), upon a bill for a partition of the cold bath, &c., the strongest arguments of inconveniency imaginable were used, but did not prevail. 158 ANONYMOUS AMB. 237. [237] In Nevis v. Levene,(3) the plaintiff was entitled to 3 or 400 acres, and the defendant to 4 or 5 only; and though the defendant would have rather given up his part than be at the expence of a partition, yet it was decreed, " and to he at the equal " expence of both parties." (4) (1) See Cartwright v. Pultney, 2 Atk. 380. Turner v. Morgan, 8 Ves. 144. Parker v. Fairfax, 17 Ves. 548. But though if the plaintiff's title is clear he may demand a commission as a matter of right, yet if his title is suspicious, the Court may exercise its discretion, and leave him to his remedy at law, Baring v. Nash. 1 V. & B. 556. See in Scott v. Fawcet, 1 Dick. 299.-See Warner v. Baines, post, 589, and notes there. (2) The bill stated that the plaintiffs, together with the defendants were owners in fee simple of all the- undivided pasture called Thisleton Pasture, the whole of which consisted of 102 acres of full made beast grasses which belonged to, and were en-joyed by the plaintiffs and defendants in the proportions following, that is to say : to plaintiff Parker 29 beast grasses, to plaintiff Foxcroft 17, to defendant Sir T. Gerrard 13f, to defendant C. 14, to defendant T-. 11J, to defendant S. 3, to defendant M. 2, making together 90; and that plaintiffs and defendants were the proprietors of the remaining 12 beast grasses in the same proportion.-The defendants by their answer stated, that the land extended a mile and a half, and that some parts were rocky, and craggy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Nullagine Investments Pty Ltd Vwa Club Inc.
-
Between (1) Thelda Julynn Hubbell (2) Chelsea Kristyn Hubbell Plaintiffs v (1) Timothy Christopher Hubbell (2) Joshua Thomas Hubbell (3) Julius Chrsitop0her Hubbell Defendants
...judgment dated 31 May 2018 2 Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, Civil Appeal no. 15 of 2005 3 [2000] CILR 131 (CA) 4 Parker v Gerard (1754) 27 E.R. 157; Baring v Nash (1813) 35 E.R. 214 5 Mayfair Property Company v Johnston, [1894] 1 Ch. 508 6 Pun Jong Sau & Ors. v Poon Wing Kong & Ors. [197......
-
Between (1) Thelda Julynn Hubbell (2) Chelsea Kristyn Hubbell Plaintiffs v (1) Timothy Christopher Hubbell (2) Joshua Thomas Hubbell (3) Julius Chrsitop0her Hubbell Defendants
...judgment dated 31 May 2018 2 Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, Civil Appeal no. 15 of 2005 3 [2000] CILR 131 (CA) 4 Parker v Gerard (1754) 27 E.R. 157; Baring v Nash (1813) 35 E.R. 214 5 Mayfair Property Company v Johnston, [1894] 1 Ch. 508 6 Pun Jong Sau & Ors. v Poon Wing Kong & Ors. [197......
-
Albury v Albury
... ... 1 This action was commenced by the plaintiff against the defendant for failing to distribute the assets of Mary Violet Albury, ... the proceeds, which is his right to seek as a tenant in common (see Parker v. Gerard 1754 Amb 236 and Mayfair Property Co v ... Johnson [1894] 1 Ch ... ...