Re The London Dock Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 January 1848 |
| Date | 15 January 1848 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 746
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 17 L. J. Ch. 111; 12 Jur. 405.
746 IN RE THE LONDON DOCK COMPANY 11 BEAV. 78. [78] In re the london dock company. Jan. 14, 15, 1848. [S. C. 17 L. J. Ch. Ill; 12 Jur. 405.] Where under Private Acts, &c., the Court has jurisdiction to proceed in a summary way by petition, it is not usual, on directing a reference to ascertain the parties entitled, to direct the production of deeds and documents, and to examine the parties. One such reference having been made, the Court refused, with costs, an application of a second claimant, for a second order containing special directions. A party obtaining a Master's report adverse to himself will be compelled to file it. Under their Act (39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 47, local and personal), the London Dock Company were empowered to take the lands necessary for the construction of their dock; and in case of incapacity, the purchase-money was directed to be paid into Court, to the intent that the same might be applied " under the direction and with the approbation of the Court, to be signified by an order, made upon a petition to be preferred in a summary way by the person or persons who would have been entitled to the rents and profits," in the purchase of other hereditaments to be conveyed to the like uses. And in the meantime the money was to be invested, and the dividends paid to the persons who would have been entitled to the lands. (See s. 39.) Under these powers, the company took certain property which was settled, as to one moiety, on John Betts the younger for life, with remainder to Anna Maria his wife (the only child of James Prince), for life, with remainder to their children (which limitation failed), with remainder to the right heirs of A. M. Betts for ever. Four houses^ part of the property, were stated to have been purchased by the maternal ancestor of James Prince, the father of Mrs. Betts. On the above purchase being made, a moiety of the purchase-money was paid into Court, and the dividends were directed to be paid to the tenants for life. [79] John Betts survived Anna Maria his wife, and died in February 1841, whereupon Thomas Edwards, who claimed to be heir ex parte maternA of A. M. Betts, presented a petition, and obtained a reference to the Master, to ascertain the deaths of the parties without issue, and to inquire who was the heir at law of the said A. M. Betts, and who was the heir ex parte maternd of James...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Blake, Re London Dock Company
...was the heir ex parte paterna of A. M. Betts, which was ultimately determined in favour of Mrs. Blake. (See In re The London Dock Company, 11 Beav. 78; and ante, p. 188, note; Hyde v. Edwards, 12 Beav. 160, 253.) A petition was now presented by Mr. and Mrs. Blake, for payment out of Court o......
-
Hyde v Edwards
...of documents, and the examination of parties. The Master of the Rolls having, on the 15th January 1848, dismisaed this petition (11 Beav. 78), the Petitioners filed their bill on the 23d June 1849, for a purpose similar to that sought by their petition. Upon the application,, however, of th......