Semple v Price
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 July 1839 |
| Date | 19 July 1839 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 59 E.R. 604
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Pleading. Supplement Bill. Practice.
[238] semple v. price. July 19, 1839. Pleading. Supplemental Bill. Practice. A necessary party may be brought before the Court by supplemental bill where the cause is in such a stage that the original bill cannot be amended. T he object of the original bill in this case was to charge Gibson, who was the surviving trustee of the Plaintiff's marriage settlement, with a breach of trust in selling out a sum of stock, part of the settled property. Gibson, by his answer, (1) It did not appear that any further affidavit was made. 10 SIM. 2*8. BLANSHAED V. DREW 605 submitted that the personal representative of W. Price, his late co-trustee, was a necessary party to the suit. The Plaintiff, however, did not amend her bill; but, after the cause was at issue and a commission had issued for the examination of witnesses, she filed a supplemental bill against Mary Price, the personal representative of W. Price, stating that she had lately discovered that the breach of trust was committed in Price's lifetime, and praying that his estate might be made responsible for it. Mary Price demurred to the supplemental bill on the following amongst other grounds; namely, that she was not a party to the original bill, and that no new matter was alleged in the supplemental bill to have arisen since the filing of the original bill. [239] Mr. Koe, in support of the demurrer, referred to Lord Lyndhurst's 15th Order, and said that the filing of the supplemental bill was an attempt to evade that order. He also cited Baldwin v. Mackown (3 Atk. 817). Mr. Coleridge, in support of the supplemental bill, said that it was laid down by Lord Redesdale that a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M'Namara v Blake
...1 Jo. & Lat. 305; S. C. 7 Ir. Eq. Rep. 98. Blackburne v. StanilandENR 15 Sim. 640 Smith v. EffinghamUNK 11 Jur. 896. Semple v. PriceENR 10 Sim. 238. v. MorrisENR 1 Hare, 420. Jones v. StowellsENR 2 Hare, 42. Howells v. BakerENR 3 Hare, 73.1 Parker v. CarterENR 4 Hare, 406. Greenwood v. Atki......