Sir Edward Smith against Haytwell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 October 1747 |
| Date | 20 October 1747 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 39
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
AMB. 67. SMITH V. HAYTWELL 39 Case 24.-Sir edward smith against haytwell. October 20, 1747. Bill to be relieved against a promissory note given on a marriage brokage agreement; on motion, the defendant restrained from parting with, or assigning the note, till answer or further order. (See Arundel v. Trevillian, 1 Ch. Rep. 67. Drury v. Hooke, 1 Vern. 412. Smith v. Bruning, 2 Vern. 392. Stubblehill v. Brett, 2 Vern. 446; 1 Bro. P. 0. 57. Cole v. Gibson, 1 Ves. sen. 503. Roche v. Obrien, 1 B. & B. 358. Williamson v. Gibson, 2 Sch. &. Lef. 357.)-[Lib. Eeg. 1746, B. fo. 468, nom. Smith v. Hakewell. S. C. 3 Atk. 506.] Bill to be relieved against a negotiable promissory note, for 2000, given by plaintiff to defendant, on a' marriage brokage agreement. (Note : It appears from L. R., that the plaintiff was a young man who had quarrelled with his father, and was in great distress, that the defendant taking advantage of his difficulties, proposed to introduce him to a lady of large fortune, for which service he prevailed on plaintiff to give him the note in question. It turned out that the defendant knew nothing of the lady.) Mr. Yorke moved for an injunction to restrain defendant, until answer or order, from negotiating, or parting with this note : that though there is no precedent for this, most of the cases of this kind being of bonds, yet, unless this was granted, the justice of the Court might be eluded, by paying the note into the hands of a purchaser, without notice pendente lite ; and there was an affidavit of the facts. Lord Chancellor said, This does not fall within any of the ordinary rules of injunctions. This Court does not grant injunctions until after appearance, except in certain cases, therefore an injunction to stay proceedings at law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Badham v Mee
...education, and bringing up of three of the children of Richard Mee the elder, must be intended to be confined to their minority (see Amb., 66.'i). To educate and bring them up was the object of the bequest, and maintenance is referred to merely as incidental to the other principal purposes.......
-
Patrick and Another against Harrison and Another
...and to be served with the subpoana.(l) (S. P. Elackwood's case, 3 Anstru. 851; and see Smith v. Aykwell, there cited, 3 Atk. 566, and Ambler, 66, with the prior instances there mentioned. See also Jervis v. White, 1 Ves. 413, 416.) Mr. Stanley moved for an injunction to restrain the defenda......
-
Storey against Higgins
...and to be served with the subpoana.(l) (S. P. Elackwood's case, 3 Anstru. 851; and see Smith v. Aykwell, there cited, 3 Atk. 566, and Ambler, 66, with the prior instances there mentioned. See also Jervis v. White, 1 Ves. 413, 416.) Mr. Stanley moved for an injunction to restrain the defenda......
-
THE TRADITIONAL BURDENS FOR FINAL INJUNCTIONS IN PATENT CASES C.1789 AND SOME MODERN IMPLICATIONS.
...Court of Chancery 398 (London, 7th ed. 1790). (67.) See, e.g., Lord Orrery v. Newton, Ridg. t. H. 252, 252 (Ch. 1744); Smith V. Haytwell, Amb. 66, 66-67 (Ch. 1747); Anonymous, 1 Ves. Sr. 476, 476 (Ch. 1750); Ryder v. Bentham, 1 Ves. Sr. 543, 543 (Ch. 1750); Fishmongers' Co. v. E. India Co.,......