Troup v Richardo
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 November 1864 |
| Date | 17 November 1864 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 46 E.R. 1008
BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR LORD WESTBURY.
S. C. 12 W. R. 1135; 10 L. T. 833; 10 Jur. (N. S.), 859, 1161; 13 W. R. 147; 11 L. T. 399; 34 L. J. Ch. 91. Distinguished, Smith v. Moffatt, 1865, L. R. 1 Eq. 400; see Roberts v. Moreton, 1869, 17 W. R. 399; Motion v. Moojen, 1872, L. R. 14 Eq. 208.
489] troup v. ricabdo. Before the Lord Chancellor Lord Westbury. Nov. 15, 17, 1864. [S. C. 12 W. E. 1135; 10 L. T. 833; 10 Jur. (N. S.), 859, 1161; 13 W. R. 147 ; 11 L. T. 399 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 91. Distinguished, Smith v. Mo/ait, 1865, L. R. 1 Eq. 400; see Roberts v. Moreton, 1869, 17 W. R. 399; Motion v. Moojen, 1872, L. R. 14 Eq. 208.] The jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery is not ousted by a limited statutory jurisdiction conferred upon another Court, and is properly invoked where the purposes for which the limited jurisdiction is conferred are at a end, or where the limited jurisdiction is not equal to the comprehension of the matter in dispute or can only be exercised on terms destructive of the right claimed. An insolvent debtor's estate had been fully administered in the Insolvent Debtors Court, and a sum paid out of Court to him as surplus; but he had obtained no order to annul the insolvency or to re-vest his property in him. Held, that he was nevertheless entitled to sue in Chancery, in order to impeach the dealings of his assignees in insolvency with his property. Rochfort v. Battersby (2 H. L. Gas. 388) and Dyson v. Hornby (7 De G. M. & G. 1) distinguished. Circumstances under which a demurrer for multifariousness was overruled. This was an appeal by the Plaintiff from the allowance by the Master of the Rolls of a general demurrer to the bill for want of equity and multifariousness. For the purposes of this report, and with the following additions, the allegations in the bill sufficiently appear from the Lord Chancellor's judgment, as does also the scope of the arguments. The bill was not filed till 1864, although the transactions it sought to impugn ranged over a period of time beginning with the year 1844 and ending in the year 1862. The order made by the Insolvent Debtors Court vesting the Appellant's property in the provisional [490] assignee in insolvency was made in October 1853. The assignees under the insolvency were appointed in November 1854. The sale which the bill sought to set aside took place in 1855. A second vesting order in insolvency was made in respect of the Appellant's property in 1856. The order made for the return of 850 out of the Insolvent Debtors Court to the Appellant as surplus of his estate was made shortly before the abolition of the Insolvent Debtors Court, and the Appellant's application to the Commissioner to annul the insolvencies, and 4DEQ.J. &a.m. troup v. bicardo 1009 the refusal of the Court so to do, unless the Appellant would sign an undertaking to confirm all the proceedings that had been taken under them-an undertaking which the Appellant declined to enter into, the consequence being that no re-vesting order or order to annul the insolvencies was or could be obtained-was in 1862. Mr. SeLwyn and Mr. T, A. Roberts appeared for the Appellant, and Mr. Baggalfey and Mr. Martineau, for the Respondents, the demurring Defendants. The following were the authorities referred to viz.- On the part of the Appellant, Ex parte Bennett (10 Ves. 381); Wearing v. Ellis (5 De G. M. & G. 596); Ex parte Cook (2 E. & E. 586): For the Respondents, stat. 1 & 2 Viet. c. 110, ss. 37, 44, 45, 47, 62, 63, 92, and the Bankruptcy Act, 1861, ss. 19, 23, 24 ; and Tudway v. Jones (1 K. & J. 691); Grange v. Trickett (2 E. & B. 395); Kemot v. Pittis (Ibid. 421); Anon. (5 L. T. N. S. 403); ffV-[491]-maki v. De Lisle (3 Beav. 18); Westhead v. Keene (1 Beav. 287); Rochfart v. Batttrsby (2 H. L. Gas. 388); Dysm v. Hornby (7 De G. M. & G. 1); Heath v. Cliad-wick (2 Ph. 649). the lord chancellor. Two causes of demurrer to this bill are assigned-want of equity and multifariousness. Let me first give a sketch of the nature of the suit, and dispose of the technical ground of demurrer-that of multifariousness. The Plaintiff sues describing himself as an insolvent debtor, but he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blasius Tirupia v The Administration (Re Japlik and Vunapaladig No 2)
...to be vested as an alternative in another tribunal (here, in the Land Titles Commission) (cf Trop v Ricardo 4 De GJ & S 489 at 498; (1864) 46 ER 1008 at 1012) Applying and adopting the words of Lord Cranworth LC in Fleming v Self (1854) 3 De GM & G 997 at 1030; (1854) 43 ER 390 at 400—the t......