Parsons v Freeman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 November 1751 |
| Date | 09 November 1751 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 1225
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Plowden v. Hyde, 1852, 2 De G. M. & G. 691.
Case, 285.-parry versus owen, August 3, 1751. S. 0. Amb. 109.-The wife and executrix of an attorney brought a bill for money due for business done by her husband as the defendant's attorney. A demurrer to the relief as a remedy is at law under the statute of 2 Geo. 2, for the better regulation of attorneys and solicitors. Lord Chancellor allowed the demurrer. A bill brought by the executrix of an attorney, for money due from the defendant for business done by her husband as his attorney, and to be paid what shall be found due on an account, and states the delivery of a bill by the plaintiff. The defendant demurred to the relief; and for cause of demurrer shewed, the remedy was at law, and that an act of parliament has pointed out a summary way; the statute of 2 Geo. 2, cap. 23, sect. 22. Lord Chancellor allowed the demurrer. (Reg. Lib. B. 1750, fol...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duppa, Executor of Baskerville v Mayo
...conveyance of the legal estate to cestui que trust, or to a trustee for his use, does not amount in equity to a revocation of the will. 3 Atk. 741, Parsons v. Freeman. S. C. Ambl. 118, per Lord Hardwicke, Watts v. Fullarton, cited in Doe v. Pott, Doug. 718. See W&let v. Sandford, 1 Ves. 178......
-
Lord Ossulston contra Lord Yarmouth
...2 Bro. Ch. Rep. 257. As to marshalling assets, vide note to Clifton v. Hurt, 1 P. Wms. 678, inserted 2 Salk. 416. Fide also Cox's note to 2 P. Wms. 664. English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 388 COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER.Lord Ossulston contra Lord Yarmouth De......
-
Rawlins v Burgis
...he had by the Contract; and consistently with all the Authorities the Effect is a Eevocation. The Bill was dismissed without Costs. (1) 3 Atk. 741; Amb. 116 ; 1 Wils. 308. See Brydges v. The Duchess of Chandos, Williams v. Owens, 2 Ves. Jun. 417, 595. Cave v. Holford, 3 Ves. 650. Ilarnwod v......
-
Jenkinson v Harcourt
...(17 Jur. 1022). The principles on which one fund is exonerated out of another [695] are well summed up in Cox's note to Evelyn v. Evelyn (2 P. Wms. 664); and see Edwards v. Freeman (2 P. Wms. 435), Graves'v. Hicks (6 Sim. 391), Lewis v. Nangle (1 Amb. 150), Ex parte Digby (1 Jac. 235) and N......