Taylor v Scrivens
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 August 1839 |
| Date | 07 August 1839 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 48 E.R. 1062
ROLLS COURT
[571] taylor v. scrivens. June 6, 1839. A cheque of the Accountant-General was alleged to have been accidentally destroyed. The Court, though not satisfied with the evidence of its destruction, directed the issue of a new cheque, on the ground that the other cheque, being more than a year old, would not be paid if presented. In this case it was alleged, that the Accountant-General's cheque given to the solicitor for his costs, and dated in April 1838, had been accidentally destroyed, and it was stated to be the practice of the Accountant-General's office not to issue a second cheque, except authorized by the Court. It was also stated to be the practice not to pay the Accountant-General's cheques, if more than a year old. Mr. Willcock now applied to the Court for an order for issuing a second cheque ; relying on a case of Strutt v. Finch (L. C. 25th Nov. 1837); the application was supported by affidavits. IBEAV.sn. TENCH V. CHEESE 1063 the master of the rolls [Lord Langdale] said, that the evidence of the destruction of the cheque was unsatisfactory, but he should make the order, on the ground of the practice of not paying the Accountant-General's cheques after the expiration of a limited time.
English Reports Citation: 48 E.R. 1063
ROLLS COURT
[571] tench v. cheese. July 17, August 7, 1839. An exception for impertinence must be supported in MA, or will fail altogether. Where, by the bill, a Defendant is called upon to set forth, in the ordinary form, and without any limitation being suggested by the Plaintiff, a schedule of deeds in his possession, it is not impertinent to state the names of the parties to the deeds, in addition to the dates and description of the estates to which they relate. This was a case of exceptions for impertinence, taken to the further answer of the Defendant Cheese, to the Plaintiff's bill filed for the administration of the real [572] and personal estate of a testator, and for the appointment of a new trustee. By the bill the Plaintiff called upon the Defendant, in the usual manner, " to set forth a full and true list or schedule " of all the deeds, papers and writings relating to the matters in question which were in his possession or power. The Defendant annexed to his first answer, a schedule of deeds, making no admission as to the possession of any specific vouchers or papers, but admitting generally that he had divers papers, &c., without specifying them, which he offered to produce, alleging that they were very numerous, and could not be set out without great and unnecessary expense. This answer not being satisfactory, the Plaintiff took six exceptions for insufficiency, on that as well as other grounds: one of such exceptions related to the books and papers. The Defendant put in a further answer, the schedule of deeds annexed to which occupied more than seventy brief...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reeves v Baker
...312), The Attnrney-Gmeral v. Richards (6 Beavan, 444, 1 Phil. 383, and 12 Cl. & Fin. 30 ; and see Gilb. For. Rom. 209), Tench v Ohee.se, (1 Beavan, 571), were cited. the master or the rolls [Lord Langdale]. I adhere to the opinion expressed by me in The Attorney-General v. Rickards that the......
-
Raven v Kerl
...altogether, and that the exception must be overruled if it concluded any one passage which was not impertinent. And in Tench v. Cheese (1 Beav. 571) the present Master of the Eolls said, " If any part of the matter complained of as impertinent is not so, the whole exception fails, although ......
-
Ballard v White
...successively, and making a special order, as if there were distinct exceptions. Moore v. Langford (6 Sim. 323) and Tench v. Cheese (1 Beav. 571) were also cited. the vice-chancellor [Sir James Wigram]. The Plaintiffs in this case carried in objections to the allowances made by the Master to......
-
Byde v Masterman
...never been applied, except where it has been found impossible to separate what was pertinent from what-was impertinent, Tench v. Cheese (1 Beav, 571); which is not the case here. Even supposing, however, that this schedule may properly be the subject of a general exception, this exception i......