Thornton v The Portsmouth and Arundel Navigation Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 April 1845 |
| Date | 11 April 1845 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 71 E.R. 669
VICE-CHANCELLOR WIGRAM'S COURT.
[56] vice-chancellor wigram's court. thornton v. the portsmouth and arundel navigation company. April 10, 11, 1845. T., a mortgagee of rates and tolls of a navigation company, having a power to enter and receive tolls in default of payment, but no covenant from the company to pay the money borrowed, has notice of a prior mortgage to the manager of the company, and files a bill for foreclosure, and for an account against prior mortgagee. Demurrer to the bill for want of equity overruled, with costs. This was a demurrer for want of equity to a bill for the foreclosure of a mortgage. Shelton, 5 Ves. 147, service at the last place of abode of the Defendant's wife was. ordered to be good service. Where a Defendant out of the jurisdiction of the Court gave a special direction to a person within the jurisdiction to act as his agent with respect to the property which was the subject of the suit, the Court ordered service of subpoena to appear and answer on that person to be good service on the Defendant. Hobhouse v. Courtney, 12 Sim. 140. If a Plaintiff at law is abroad, the Plaintiff in equity is entitled to an order (which is granted upon an affidavit of the [54] truth of his bill) that service of the svbpcena to appear on the attorney in his action at law may be deemed good service on him; but the Court will not order service of a subpoena to answer a cross-bill on the solicitors of the Plaintiff in the original bill to be deemed good service. Waterton v. Croft, 5 Sim. 502. In a creditor's suit substituted service of a subpoena to appear was ordered on the person who, acting as the attorney of the executor and general devisee and legatee resident in India, had obtained administration here, and had entered into the receipts of the rents of the real estate (Weymouth v. Lambert, 3 Beav. 333); and also on the solicitor of a Defendant residing out of the jurisdiction. Cooper v. Wood, 5 Beav. 391. There does not appear to be any case in which it has been decided that substituted service of a subpcena on the general solicitor of a Defendant who is out of the jurisdiction of the Court is good service on such Defendant; the point was brought before the Court in the case of Noad v. Backhouse^ 2 Young & C. 529, and referred to the Lord Chancellor. The matter was, however^ arranged, and the application was not received. 670 THORNTON V...
To continue reading
Request your trial