Strickland v Strickland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 January 1842 |
| Date | 27 January 1842 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 59 E.R. 1210
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Pleading. Parties. Executors. Revivor.
[463] strickland v. strickland. Jan. 27, 1842. Pleading. Parties. Executors. Rei ivor. If a Defendant dies, having appointed two or more executors and all of them do not prove the will, it is sufficient for the Plaintiffs to revive the suit against those who prove. Eustachius Strickland, one of the Defendants, died, having appointed Sir George Strickland and G. Meynell his executors : but Sir George alone proved his will. The Plaintiffs revived the suit against Sir George, but not against Meynell. Mr. Shadwell, for Sir George Strickland and Mr. Meynell, now moved that the Plaintiffs might revive within 14 days against both the executors, or that the bill might be dismissed as against them. He said that executors derived their title under the will, and if one of them proved it, they all became the personal representatives of the testator. Mr. Bethell, for the Plaintiffs. As the Plaintiffs have revived the suit against the executor who has proved the will, they have done all that it is incumbent on them to do. the vice-chancellor [Sir L. Shadwell] said that although, where A. and B. were appointed executors and A. alone proved, the probate enured to B., yet the general rule was that it was sufficient to bring A. alone before the Court.
English Reports Citation: 59 E.R. 1211
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Costs. Exceptions. Practice.
12 HM. 464. EVERETT V. PBYTHERGCH 1211 [464] everett v. prythergch. strickland v. strickland. Jan. 27, Feb. 8, March 23, 1842. Costs. Exceptions. Practize. If exceptions to the Master's report as to scandal or impertinence are allowed, the Court, on the application of the successful party, will order the costs of the reference to the Master, and also the costs of the application, to be taxed and paid by the unsuccessful party. In Everett v. Prythergch (see ante, p. 365) the Defendant excepted to the bill for scandal and impertinence; and the Master allowed some of the exceptions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arthur Pageitt Greene and Godfrey Greene, Infants, v John Greene and Others
...v. Johnson 11 Ir. Eq. R. 476. Harrison v. GrahamENR 1 P. Wms. 241, note. Cummins v. Cummins 3 Jo. & L. 64. Strickland v. StricklandENR 12 Sim. 463. In re Badenach 10 Jur. N. S. 921. Stacey v. Elph 1 Myl. & K. 195. Conyngham v. Conyngham 1 Ves. 522. Knight v. Boughton 11 Cl. & F. 555. M'Corm......
-
Harvey v Shelton
...v. Halhed, 4 B. 0. C. 222; and Tyrrel v. Redifer, 1 Mer. 132. (2) See also Desanges v. Gregory, 6 Sim. 473; and Everett v. Prythergch, 12 Sim. 464. 1142 HARVEY V. SHELTON 7BEAV.M6. A motion was made to dismiss a bill, in pursuance of an award; it came on upon the last day, on which, under t......