Smart v Bradstock
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 July 1844 |
| Date | 18 July 1844 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 49 E.R. 1159
ROLLS COURT
[500] smart v. bradstock. July 18, 1844. Twenty years ago, twenty-seven persons conveyed real and personal estate to trustees to sell, and to divide the produce. Held, that a bill might be filed by a few, on behalf, &c., against the trustees, to make them account; and that it was not necessary to make all the persons interested parties to the suit. This bill was filed by the three Plaintiffs, " on behalf of themselves and all other 1160 LEGKIE V. HOGBEN 7BEAV.80L the persons interested in the real and personal estates of Walter Woodcock," and the produce of such estates, under two indentures dated in 1824 and 1826. Disputes having arisen between the parties entitled under the will of Walter Woodcock, such parties (being twenty-seven in number) executed the deeds in question, whereby they conveyed the real and personal estate to trustees, on trust to sell, and to divide the produce between the parties beneficially interested. This bill was filed to make the trustees account. Mr. Bevir, for the Defendant Bradstock, objected, that the suit was defective for want of parties, and he insisted that all the persons beneficially interested under the òdeeds stated, ought to be made parties, to protect their interests. That there was no allegation in the bill [501] that the persons interested were so numerous that it would be impossible to make them parties to the suit; and in a case before Vice-Chancellor Wigram (Harrison v. Stewardson, 2 Hare, 530) it was considered that twenty creditors, interested in a real estate, were not so large a number, that the Court would, on the ground of inconvenience alone, allow a few of them to represent the others, and dispense with such others as parties in a suit to recover the estate against the whole body of creditors. Mr. Kindersley and Mr. Shapter, for another Defendant. Mr. Turner and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Victoria
...(1841) 4 Beav 215 [ 49 ER 321], (1842) 5 Beav 134 [ 49 ER 528]; Hawkins v Hawkins (1842) 1 Hare 543 [ 66 ER 1147]; Smart v Bradstock (1844) 7 Beav 500 [ 49 ER 33 Mitford, A Treatise on the Pleadings in Suits in the Court of Chancery by English Bill, 4th ed (1827) at 166–167; Leigh v Thomas ......
-
Perry v Holl
...cannot be treated as a payment to Perry ; Toild v. HtfUl (4 B. & Aid. 210); Rusnell v. Bimgley (4 B. & Aid. 395); Vowng v. While, (7 Beav. 500); Snott v. Irving (1 Burn. & AdoL 605). Thirdly, we contend that the Holls are affected with constructive notice of the,fraud. Parkinson prepared th......
-
Bateman v Margerison
...against him in respect of such participation, but they were not bound to do so. the solicitor-general referred to Smart v. Bradstock (7 Beav. 500), in which a suit was filed by some on behalf of the rest, where the parties interested were twenty-seven in number, and the deeds were twenty ye......