Philpot v Hoare and Robinson

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date26 November 1741
Date26 November 1741
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 535

HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY

Philpot
and
Hoare and Robinson

See Hopkinson v. Lovering, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 97.

2ATK. 218. LONG V. BURTON 535 [218] Case 175.-long versus burton, November 12, 1741. If after a cross-bill filed, a plaintiff in an original bill will amend it in material parts, and thinks fit to compel an answer to the amendments at the same time with the original bill, he waves his priority of answer to the original. (See Child v. Frederick, 1 P. W. 266. Steward v. Roe, 2 P. W. 435. Rattray v. Darley, post, 3 vol. 724.) Where a bill is amended both in discovery and relief, the pendency of suit, as to those parts, is only from the time of the amendment. The answer to an original bill was reported insufficient, the defendant filed a crossbill, and the plaintiff obtained an order that the original bill should be answered before he answered the cross-bill; the plaintiff too, on the answer's being reported insufficient, obtained an order to amend his bill, and the amendments to be answered when the exceptions were, and amended his bill in several material matters. Mr. Chute moved to discharge the order obtained, and relied on the case in 2 P. Williams, 435, Steward and Roe. Lord Chancellor. By the course of the court, the plaintiff, in the cross cause, cannot have an answer till he has himself answered the original bill; but this is a privilege the plaintiff in the original bill has in right of his original bill; for if after the cross-bill is filed he will amend the original bill in material parts, I do not think he is intitled to have an answer to the amendments; for, as the bill may be amended both in discovery and relief, the pendency of suit, as to those parts which are amended, is only from the time of the amendment. The present case goes further than the case in Mr. Peere Williams's Reports, because here the answer to the original bill is insufficient. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Duppa, Executor of Baskervile, v Mayo
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 1 January 1845
    ...a lodger?] An assignment by operation of law, as by the bankruptcy of the lessee, is no forfeiture; 2 Eq. Gas. Abr. 100, Goring v. Warner. 2 Atk. 219, Philpot v. Hoare. Ambl. 480, S. C. 3 M. & S. 353, Doe v. Bevan; unless it be expressly covenanted that the lease shall be forfeited by the b......
  • Doe, on the demise of Mitchinson, against Carter
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 23 November 1798
    ...conditions of this kind have always been construed strictly. Berry v. Taunton, Cm. Eliz. 331; More's case, Cro. EL 26; Philpot v. Hoare, 2 Atk. 219. Though the case of Roe v. Galliers (a) is different from the present, because there the question arose on the legality of a proviso in the lea......
  • Lord v The Governor and Company of Copper Miners and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 5 December 1848
    ...The following are the cases there referred to in addition to these cited above:- . Clavering v. Westley, 3 P. Wms. 402; PUlpot v. Eoare, 2 Atk. 219; WilUns v. Fry, 1 Mer. 264; Doe d. Maslin v. Roe, 5 Esp. 105; Coochv. Goodman, 2 Q. B. 580; Pitman v. Woodbury, 3 Exch. 4. The author of the pa......
  • Fagg v Dobie
    • United Kingdom
    • Exchequer
    • 1 January 1838
    ...contrives to receive the Michaelmas rents, deducting the 51. out of them. This transaction cannot be supported . Phdpot v. Home (Ambl 480; 2 Atk. 219) is very similar to the present case. There the assignment was made to an insolvent immediately before the rent ieoime due, and the Court hel......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT