Swan v Swan
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 January 1819 |
| Date | 08 January 1819 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 146 E.R. 1281
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
Commented on, In re Leslie, Leslie v French, 1883, 23 Ch. D. 552, 564. Followed, Sinclair v. James, [1894] 3 Ch. 556; Hill v. Hickin, [1897] 2 Ch. 581.
v. swan. 13th Nov. 1H20. 8th January 1819. - Where it is stated by the I answer to a bill filed for a partition that the Defendant has laid out money in ;- building land improving the premises, the Court will not decree a partition, with-j out a reference to the Master to take an account. - A mortgagee is not a necessary 1 party to i suit for partition, because he is entitled to the whole. - Money laid out in improving the premises, does not, however, in strictness, create a lien on the premises; but it is a sufficient ground for a Court of Equity to refuse to interfere. - A supplemental bill, filed after the hearing of the original bill, stating additional facts which arose and were known to the Plaintiff before he filed his original bill, and praying that other matters might be taken into the account ordered to be taken before the Master, is clemurrable, as not being the proper course to be pursued by the Plaintiff in such a case. -He should have applied to the Court for leave to amend, or to file a supplemental bill, before the cause had been suffered to proceed so far. [Commented on, In i'e Leslie, Leslie v. French, 1883, 23 Ch. D. 552, 504. Followed, : Sinclair v. James, [1894] 3 Ch. 5BG ; Hill v. Hickin, [1897] 2 Ch. 581.] ; The Plaintiff in this case filed a bill against the Defendant for a partition of certain ' *' In Doru.li v. O'Reilly and Others (ante, vol. iii. p. 250), however, this Court refused an application for interest, founded on facts stated to them by affidavit, on thd ground thiat the other party had no opportunity of contradicting them, and that where interest is given, it ought to appear on the face of the record, that the debt was such as iii itself carried interest, and then no affidavit would be necessary (Anon., ante, vol. ii., p. 7). ** Interest is allowed against bankers after the rate at which they are accustomed to allow it on money deposited with them. Vide ante, I kin v. ftratllay, vol. v. p. 5;jG. Ex. Div. it.- 41 1282 SWAN V. SWAN 8 PRICE, B19. leasehold premises, to which the Plaintiff' and Defendant were entitled in undivided moieties. The Defendant, in his answer, stated that the premises (subject to a mortgage to a third person) had been for several years in his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M.C v B.S
...567 PARTITION ACT 1868 S4 PITT & ORS v JONES & ORS 1879-80 5 APP CAS 651 RICHARDSON v FEARY 1888 39 CH D 45 SWAN v SWAN 1820 8 PRICE 518 146 ER 1281 SINCLAIR v JAMES 1894 3 CH 554 MCC (D) v MCC (M) 1986 ILRM 1 1984/5/1409 C v C 1976 IR 254 1977 111 ILTR 133 POWER v CONROY 1980 ILRM 31 1980/......
-
Chen Yu Tsui v Tong Kui Kwong
...23 ER 480. The only other remedy was also provided in equity, where an account lay as incidental to a suit for partition: Swan v. Swan (1819) 8 Price 518, 146 ER 1281; Pascoe v. Swan (1859) 27 Beav 508, 54 ER 201; Leigh v. Dickonson (1884) 15 QBD 60, [1881-5] All ER 1099; or in proceedings ......
-
Davis v. Cipryk, (1977) 21 N.S.R.(2d) 266 (TD)
...action, however, he may be allowed sums properly spent on substantial repairs and improvements (Swan v. Swan, (1820) 8 Price 518, 146 E.R. 1281; Pascoe v. Swan, (1859) 27 Beav. 508, 54 E.R. 201; Leigh v. Dickeson, supra) and may be charged with excess rents and profits received by him (Hyde......
-
Mary Prendergast v Bridget Mongan and Others
...34 I. L. T. R., p. 157. (2) [1913] 1 I. R. 50. (3) L. R. 7 H. L. 70. (1) [1913] 1 I. R. 50. (1) Beatty, p. 342. (1) 1 Ves. & B. 551. (2) 8 Price, 518. (3) 16 W. R. (1) 5 A. C. 651, at p. 659. ...