Stansfield and Others, on behalf, Company v Hobson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
| Judgment Date | 13 November 1852 |
| Date | 13 November 1852 |
English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 750
ROLLS COURT
[189] stansfield, on behalf, &c. v. hobson. Nov. 8, 1852. Since the 15 & 16 Viet. c. 86, the trustees of a mortgage represent the cestuis que trust sufficiently to protect the mortgagor, but where the surviving trustees or the representatives of the trustees alone are parties, the Court requires the cestuis que trust to be also represented, in order to secure the due application of the trust property. In 1824 the six trustees of "The Union Building Society Club" mortgaged some of its property to the Defendant John Hobson for JE1000. In March 1825 the same six and six additional trustees made a further charge to the Defendant for £1000. In November 1825, by a deed made between several subscribers executing it (said to be fifty-five) of the one part, and eleven persons (of whom five were the original twelve trustees), being the remainder of the subscribers and also trustees for the time being of the society, it was agreed that such eleven trustees should sell the mortgaged premises, pay off the mortgage, and divide the residue amongst the subscribers. The original claim was filed by Stansfield (one of the two survivors of the six trustees mentioned in the first mortgage) against Hobson and Stockdale (the other survivors of the six trustees), for redemption. On the 8th of November 1851 the Master of the Eolls allowed an [190] objection for want of parties, grounded on Minn v. Slant (12 Beav. 190 and 15 Beav. 49, and see Lowe v. Morgan, 1 B. C. C. 368 ; Calverley v. fhelps, 6 Madd. 229 ; Osbourn v. Fallows, 1 Russ. & Myl. 741). The Plaintiff amended his claim, by making all the survivors of the trustees of the three deeds (except Stockdale, who was a Co-plaintiff) Co-plaintiffs. On the 17th of January 1852 the Master of the Rolls again allowed an objection for want of parties, being of opinion that Mr. Hobson, notwithstanding a decree in the present suit, might be liable to account again at the suit of any person beneficially interested and not being a party to the present suit. The Plaintiff again amended and added five other subscribers as Co-plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs now sued " on behalf of themselves and all subscribers to the society, except the Defendant Stockdale." Hobson and Stockdale remained throughout the only Defendants. The 15 & 16 Viet. c. 86, s. 42, rule 9, had lately come into operation, which provides that in all suits concerning real or personal estate vested in trustees, such trustees shall...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Sturgis v Morse
...Mr. Bagshawe and Mr. Tudor, for other Defendants, cited Ckolmondeky v. Glintm (4 Bligh (O. S.) 1, and 2 Jac. & W. 1); Stanxfield v. Hobtm (16 Beav. 236); Curtis v. Curtis (V.-C. Wood); Doe d. Curzon v. Edmonds (6 Mee. & W. 295); Wya.il v. Barwell (19 Ves. 435); Miami v. Stainbridge ......
-
Morley v Morley
...be made parties to this suit, that would be so even under the old practice, and it fortiori by the new practice under the ActStansfield v. Hobwn (16 Beav. 189); Youmj v. Ward (10 Hare, App. Iviii.). March 4. the master of the rolls [Sir John Eomilly]. It is undoubtedly a matter of great imp......
-
Stansfield v Hobson
...the same agent again wrote to the [627] mortgagee, desiring to see him as to his claims upon the JDEO.M. HQ.6M. HE WARD V. WHEATLEYS. C. 16 Beav. 236; 22 L. J. Ch. 657; 1 W. R. 216. See Sanders v. Sanders, 1881, 19 Ch. D. [620] stansfield v. hobson. Before the Lords Justices. March 2, 1863.......
