Ward v Ward
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 December 1848 |
| Date | 02 December 1848 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 777
ROLLS COURT
[159] ward v. ward. May 5, 30, 1848. After a cause had been in the paper for hearing, one of the Plaintiffs became bankrupt, and an order was made, that the Co-plaintiff should file a supplemental bill in ten days, or in default that the bill should stand dismissed. The supplemental bill was filed, butflo process was served or other proceeding taken. Held, that the Plaintiff was bound to prosecute as well aa file the supplemental bill, and after a delay of three years, the original bill was, on motion, dismissed with costs. Held, also, that the Defendant, not having appeared in the supplemental suit, could not move to dismiss it, and that one Defendant could not move to dismiss as against his Co-defendants. This cauae had been set down, and came on for hearing in 1843, when it was found defective for want of parties, and stood over with leave to amend. This was E. in.-25* 778 WARD V. WARD 11BE4.V.188. done, but before it had been again set down, it became defective by the bankruptcy of one of the Plaintiffs. On the 23d of June 1845 an order was made upon the remaining Plaintiffs, that they should file a supplemental bill in ten days, or in default thereof that the bill should be dismissed. (See 8 Beavan, p. 398.) The supplemental bill was filed within the time against the assignees; but no subpoena, was served, and no proceeding of any kind taken on it. [160] After a delay of nearly three years, the Defendants to the original bill moved to dismiss both the original and supplemental bill as against all the Defendants, with costs. Mr. Selwyn, in support of the motion, insisted that the Plaintiffs had not substantially complied with the exigency of the order of the 23d of June 1845, and that the Defendants ought, after the great delay which had occurred, to be relieved from these proceedings, by having the bills dismissed with costs. Mr. Taylor, contril, contended that the motion to dismiss for want of prosecution was irregular after subpoena to hear judgment; secondly, that the Defendants could not move to dismiss the supplemental bill, they not having appeared ; and, thirdly, that one Defendant could not move to dismiss a bill as against a Co-defendant. M. W. H. Bennet, for the assignees. Mr. Selwyn, in reply. May 30. the master of the rolls [Lord Langdale]. This was a motion made to dismiss a bill under these circumstances :-After great delay, and several motions to dismiss for want...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jack Chia-MPH Ltd v Malayan Credit Ltd
...common. This was the position in England before the Law of Property Act 1925 (15 Geo 5 e 20). In Williams v Hensman (1861) 1 John & H 546; 50 ER 862 Sir W Page Wood VC at p 557 said: A joint tenancy may be severed in three ways: in the first place, an act of any one of the persons intereste......