Walter Radcliffe, Esq., - Appellant; Martha Fursman, - Respondent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 February 1730 |
| Date | 10 February 1730 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 1 E.R. 1101
House of Lords
Mews' Dig. v. 912. Explained in Pearse v. Pearse, 1846, 1 De G. & Sm. 12, 19; Minet v. Morgan, 1873, L. R. 8 Ch. 368.
Demurrer to a bill, requiring the defendant to set forth a case with counsel's opinion, for that the plaintiff was not entitled to any such discovery, the opinion being taken for the defendant's own private use and satisfaction. Demurrer over-ruled.
case 5.-walter radcliffe, Esq.,-Appellant; martha fursman,- Respondent [10th February 1730]. [Mews' Dig. v. 912. Explained in Pearse v. Pearse, 1846, 1 De G. & Sm. 12, 19 ; Minet v. Morgan, 1873, L. R. 8 Ch. 368.] [Demurrer to a bill, requiring the defendant to set forth a case with counsel's opinion, for that the plaintiff was not entitled to any such discovery, the opinion being taken for the defendant's own private use and satisfaction. Demurrer over-ruled.] On the 29th of September 1703, Jasper Radcliffe, Esq. gave a bond in the penalty of 900 to Jane Davy, conditioned to pay her 450 at 5 per cent, interest, on the 30th of September 1704 ; and on the 19th of October 1703, he gave another bond to Mary Andrews, in 500 penalty, conditioned to pay her 250 with interest at 5 per cent, on the 20th of October 1704 both which sums of 450 and 250 were the property of Martha, the wife of Henry Mannaton, Esq. and were taken in trust for her and for her separate use, exclusive of her husband. The said Jasper Radcliffe, by his will, dated the 7th of October 1703, gave 30 per ann. to his daughter Martha Radcliffe, the respondent's mother, till she should marry or die; and if married with the consent of her mother, he gave her 1400 for her fortune, payable within twelve months next after her marriage ; he then devised real estates of 20,000 value, of which he was seised in fee, to his wife Jane Radcliffe, and to the said Henry Mannaton, for 500 years, in trust for payment of all his just [515] debts and legacies ; and made Jasper Radcliffe his son executor and residuarv legatee, and died in November 1704. Martha Mannaton, who was aunt to the respondent's said mother Martha Radcliffe, by deed, dated the 18th of November 1707, appointed that immediately after her own death, the said 250, and the interest then due, should be paid to the said Martha Radcliffe, for her separate use. 1101 II BBOWN. RADCLIFFE V. FUKSMAN [1.730] In 1716, Henry Mannaton died; and in July 1721, the said Martha...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
JP Morgan Multi-Strategy Fund LP v Macro Fund Ltd
...of Lord Taylor of Gosforth, C.J., Lord Lloyd of Berwick and Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead followed. (37) Radcliffe v. FursmanENR(1730), 2 Bro. Parl. Cas. 514; 1 E.R. 1101, distinguished. (38) Rawstone v. Preston Corp.ELR(1885), 30 Ch. D. 116; 52 L.T. 922, referred to. (39) Say & Seal (Lord)”s......
-
Knight v Marquess of Waterford and Others
...must be put upon the same footing as that of cases submitted for the opinion of counsel. Upon that point they cited Raddiffe v Fwsman (2 Bro. P. C. 514, Toml. ed.), Piexton v. Carr (1 Y. & J. 175), Beresford v. Newton (1 Younge, 377), and Bolton v. Corpoiation of Liverpool (3 Sim 467; 1 M &......
-
Woods v Woods
...submitted to produce the case, but objected to the production of the opinion: Preston v. Carr (1 Y. & J. 175), Eadcliffe v. Fursman (2 Bro. P. C. 514, Tom. ed.). He suggested also that the document was protected on the additional ground of being a communication which 4 HAKE, 84. WOODS V. WO......
-
Nicholl v Jones
...place in reference to, or contemplation of, litigation actually existing at the time when the answer was filed : Raddiffe. v. Fursman (2 Bro. P. C. 514); Bolton v. Corporatimi of Liverpool (1 My. & K. 88) ; Hughes v. Biddulph (4 Russ. 190). The cases at law seem to have gone somewhat furthe......
-
DISCLOSURE OF THE COMPANY'S PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS TO SHAREHOLDERS AS AN APPLICATION OF JOINT INTEREST PRIVILEGE
...been relied upon by the courts. See paras 79–87 below. 110 Pearse v Pearse (1846) 1 De G & Sm 12 at 24, referring to Radcliffe v Fursman 2 Bro PC 514; Richards v Jackson 18 Ves 472; Attorney-General v Berkeley (1820) 2 J&W 291. See also Edward Bray, The Principles and Practice of Discovery ......