Picard v Mitchell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 June 1851 |
| Date | 30 June 1851 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 1147
ROLLS COURT
12BEAV.4M. PICARD V. MITCHELL 1147 [486] picard v. mitchell. April 22, 1850. A railway company took lands, the subject of an administration suit, and in which infants and married women were interested, and a reference was made to the Master in the cause, to ascertain what course was the most beneficial for the parties under disability. The company was directed to pay all the costs, charges, and expenses of the petition and reference. In 1830 Richard Galcon, being seised of a real estate at Knaresborough (subject to certain rent charges and legacies created by the will of his father), made his will, by which he devised it to trustees on certain trusts. A suit was instituted for the administration of his estate, and a decree was made in 1842f referring certain matters to the Master, who made his report in 1845. In January 1847 the Leeds and Thirsk Railway Company, under the provisions contained in their Acts, 8 & 9 Viet. c. civ., extended by the 9 & 10 Viet. cc. cxlix., and oliii., and cliv., and 10 & 11 Viet. c. ccx., and the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (8 Viet. c. 18), gave notice to the parties in possession of the property, that the company required to purchase, and demanding the particulars of the estates and interests therein, atid offering to treat for the purchase and compensation. The notice stated^ that in default of compliance, the amount would be ascertained in, the manner provided for by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. On the 30th March 1847 an order was made in the cause, upon the petition of some of the parties interested, by which it was referred to the Master to ascertain, whether it was most for the benefit of the [487] parties being infants and married women, that the company should be required to take the whole of the property, and to determine by which of the modes the compensation ought to be ascertained, and directions were given for ascertaining it accordingly. The parties proceeded before the Master, and a sum of 910 was ultimately awarded them by arbitration, which was paid into Court by the company. The Master made his report in 1849. The title being accepted, a petition was now presented, praying that the money might be invested, and the dividends paid according to the rights of the parties; and for a reference to tax the Petitioners, and the Plaintiffs and Defendants to this cause, respectively, their costs, charges and expenses, of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Torre v Browne
...do a particular act that entirely disabled them from further dealing with the estate SO' as to satisfy the annuity. In Picard v. Mitchell (14 Beav. 103), the estate was held liable: Philips v. Philips (8 Beav. 193), is not an authority the other way, but merely shows that under particular c......
-
The London and South Western Railway Act, 1855 ex parte George Phillips
...Railway Company v. Wt&tcamht (11 Sim. 57); and on the part of the Respondent, Henniker v. Chafy (28 Beav. 621); Pickard v. Mitchell (12 Beav. 486); Re Taylor (1 Mac. & G. 210). [344] the lord justice turner. I should hesitate to give any opinion on this matter which would seem to establish ......
-
Pettinger v Ambler
...for the Plaintiff, asked for a sale and a direction for payment of the annuity. See Cupit v. Jackson (M'Cleland, 495); Picard v. Mitchell (14 Beav. 103); TPhite v. James (26 Beav. 191), Mr. Southgate and Mr. Swanston, for Mr. Bunn [543] and a trustee, argued that the annuity was postponed. ......
-
Re London and South-Western Railway Act, 1855
...cases were cited:-Re South Wales Railway Company (14 Beav. 418), Re Nash (4 W. E. Ill), Re Taylor (1 M. & G. 210), Picard v. Mitchell (12 Beav. 486), Haynes v. Barton (9 W. R. 777), Henniker v. Chafy (28 Beav. 621). the vice-chancellor said that when the company learned from the answers to ......