St. Victor v Devereux
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 February 1844 |
| Date | 08 February 1844 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 49 E.R. 952
ROLLS COURT
S. C. reversed on appeal, 9 Jur. 519.
952 ST. VICTOR V. DEVEREUX 6 BEAV. 884. [584] st. victor v. devereux. Nw. 13, 1843. [S. C. reversed on appeal, 9 Jur. 519.] An application for an order of course should state all the material facts. If there be any suppression, the order will be discharged, and the Court will not, on the application to discharge it, support it on the special merits then, for the first time, appearing. A Plaintiff claiming partly under the heirs of a French subject, and, through an instrument of doubtful construction, obtained an order of course at the Rolls to sue in formA pauperis, upon the simple allegation of his poverty: Held, that the order was irregular, on the ground of the suppression of the facts, which ought to have been presented for the consideration of the Court upon the application. On an application to the Master of the Rolls in a Vice-Chancellor's cause, to discharge an order of course obtained at the Rolls, the Court will not enter into the merits further than is necessary to determine whether the order was regularly obtained. This was an application to discharge an order to sue in formA pauperis, which had been obtained ex parte by the Plaintiff. It appeared that three French ladies, named Francault, De Montmignon and Golleville, were entitled to charges on an estate in France belonging to Fanning, the son, an English subject. The estate had been confiscated by the Revolutionary Government, and the Plaintiff, who claimed under Mesdames de Montmignon and Golleville, and under the heirs of Madame Francault, sought, by this bill, to obtain payment of the charges out of a portion of the compensation fund, provided by the Treaty of Paris for the indemnity of British objects, who, in contravention of the Treaty of Commerce of 1786, had suffered by confiscation of their property (see 59 G. 3, c. 31), and which had been awarded to the Defendant. The title of the Plaintiff depended on a French instrument, dated the 9th of May 1834, which, as set out in the bill, was to the following effect. (NOTE.-The translation was afterwards found to be inaccurate):- "We, the undersigned creditors, by mortgage of James R. T. Fanning, the son," &c., "and we, the heirs [585] and heiresses of our deceased sister, aunt and great-aunt, M. F. C. H. L. D. de Francault, also a creditor by mortgage of Mr. James R. T. Fanning, the son, declare altogether to have yielded to Mr. J. B. St. Victor our lawful power of procuration (he intervening and accepting) first, the third of the sum of 63,575 livres turnois, or francs, which we have lent to the said Mr. Fanning by our four contracts of the 19th of October 1791, and 4th of June 1792. Secondly, and moreover all interest which shall be recovered by him in the Court of Chancery in London. This cession is made to him, as well to indemnify him against the expenses he has already made to attain the recovery of the sums due to us by the said Monsieur Fanning, as to recompense him, on account of his long devotedness and his sacrifices for our late sister. We add, that even in case of death of one or several amongst us, we will, that Mr. B. St. Victor shall dispose, as of things belonging to him, of the sums we abandon to him, but subject to the charge of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaskell v Chambers
...the benefit he has received from it, and set the transaction aside altogether, and not partially. They cited St. Victor v. Devereux (13 Simons, 641); Boschetti v. Power (8 Beav. 98). Mr. R. Palmer, in reply. [364] Dec. 16. the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. I have read this answer ......
-
Wyllie v Ellice
...in the petition for the order of course. Cooper v. Lewis (2 Phillips, 178), Hooper v. Paver (6 Beavan, 173), and St Victor v. Devereux (6 Beavan, 584). 3dly. Because there had been a waiver of the irregularity (if any), by the proceedings taken by the Defendant, subsequently to his knowledg......
-
Lowe v Williams
...as of course, suppressing the fact of the irregularity as to the notice. It ought, therefore, to be discharged. St. Victor v. Devereux (6 Beav. 584), Holambe v. Antrobus (8 Beav. 405). Mr. Turner and Mr. Goldsmid, contra, argued that the Defendant had sustained no injury, verbal notice havi......
-
Atkin v Moran
...ATKIN and MORAN. Holcombe v. AntrobusENR 8 Beav. 412. Feucheres v. DawesENR 11 Beav. 46. St. Victor v. DevereuxENR 6 Beav. 584. Motion Ex parte — Suppression of Facts — Effect of. Yu.. VI.] EQUITY SERIES. the whole of the apportioned part. The present Earl claims, not as a remainderman,......