Reynolds v Blake
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 August 1824 |
| Date | 15 August 1824 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 57 E.R. 290
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Vendor and Purchaser. Costs.
[117] reynolds v. blake. August 15, 1824. Vendor and Purchaser. Costs. If the Master reports against the title to an estate purchased under a decree, the purchaser will be paid the costs of the reference out of the funds in the cause. One Chandler, having opened the biddings for Lot 1 of the estates sold under the decree in this cause, and paid a deposit of 40, was declared the purchaser of it at the resale. The Master, upon the title being referred to him, reported against it. Chandler afterwards died. His executors now moved that the Accountant-General might be directed, out of a sum of cash standing in his name to the credit of the cause, to pay to them the deposit; and that it might be referred to the Master to tax their costs and the costs of the motion, and that the same, when taxed, might be directed to be paid to them by the Plaintiff. Mr. Turner, in support of the motion, cited Fielder v. Higginson (3 V. & B. 142), and said that on reference to the register's book it appeared that the purchase in that case was made under the decree. Mr. Knight, for the parties in the cause. Each case must depend upon its own peculiar cir-[118]-cumstances. If this had been a bill for specific performance it would not have been, of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alexander v Crosbie
...the title is bad, the purchaser will get back his deposit, &c., and be paid his costs out of the funds in the cause: Reynolds v. Blake, 2 Sim. & Stu. 117; but the report must have been confirmed: M'Cann v. O'Farrell, 1 Hog. 137; and if there be no funds in the cause, the plaintiff will be o......
-
Plumtre v O'Dell
...2 Mel. ; 1 Russ. & My. 296.- [See also the cases collected in the note to Alexander v. Crosble, 2 Ir. Eq. Rep. 143 ; Reynolds v. Blake, 2 Sim. & Stu. 117; Stannard v. Stannard, 6 Law Rec. N. S. 126 ; Taylor v. Brown, 2 Beay. 180.1 Mr. Reeves, for the motion. Mr. William Brooke, Q. C., and M......
-
Flower v Hartopp
...held, that the purchaser was not liable to pay the costs of the reference. (See Felder v. Higgensm, 3 Ves. & B. 142, Reynolds v. Blake, 2 S. & S. 117, Smith v. Nelson, Ib. 557, Lechmere \. Brasier, 2 Jac. & W. 287, Berry v. Johnson, 2 Y. & Col. (Exc.), 564.) the master of the rolls said it ......
-
Weir v Chamley
...WEIR and CHAMLEY. Johnson v. ReardonUNK 3 Ir. Eq. Rep. 200. Hawood v. Bland Fl. & K. 540. Reynolds v. BlakeENR 2 Sim. & St. 117. The Attorney-General v. The Corporation of NewarkENR 8 Sim. 71. 566 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1852. I am of opinion therefore that the receiver was privileged until Rolls......