Whitfield v Knight
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 February 1855 |
| Date | 16 February 1855 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 551
ROLLS COURT
BEAV. 127. HELE V, LORD BEXLEY 551 [127] hele v. lord bexley. whitfield v. bowyer. whitfield v. knight. Dec. 18, 19, 1854; Jan. 16, 17, 18, Feb. 16, 1855. No account of bygone rents will bo directed against a mortgagor in possession, nor against his .agent, nor against a person claiming under his voluntary revocable deed. On reargiiment, the Master of the Rolls adhered to his decision in Hele v. Lcml Bexley, reported in 17 Beav. 14. When a Defendant is out of the jurisdiction, and the bill prays process against him, when he shall come within it, the operation of the Statute^ of Limitations is suspended, though he has neither been served nor appeared in the suit. The facts relating to this ease have already been stated in 11 Beavan, 537, and 17 Beavan, 14, and it is therefore unnecessary to repeat them.(l) The original bill in Hde. v. Lffrd Bexley was filed on the 6th of April 1829, and Sir George Bowyer, being out of the jurisdiction, process was prayed against him when he should come within it. He remained abroad, and was never served nor appeared in the suit. After the hearing of the exceptions (reported in 17 Beavan, 14), Whitfield, who was the assignee. of the interest of Hele, filed a supplemental bill against Sir George Bowyer and twenty-seven other Defendants, praying, generally, to have the benefit of the former proceedings, and for payment of what was due to him. Sir George Bowyer was served with this bill and appeared ; he insisted on the Statute of Limitations, and that he ought not to be bound by the proceedings in the other suits. [128] The original suit now came on for further directions, together with the supplemental cause. Mr. Roupell and Mr. Speed, for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Teed, for George Bowyer. Mr. R. Palmer, for three annuitants. Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Shapter, for another annuitant. Mr. Wickens, for Sir George Bowyer. Mr. Giffard, for Bridger, a trustee. Mr. Metcalfe, for Huntingford. Mr. Follett and Mr. Goldsmid, for Donovan. Mr. Greene, for Vigor. Mr. Osborn, for Sturgis. Mr. Roupell, in reply. The authorities referred to were as follows :-That " a judgment is at law no lien upon a legal term;" Forth v. Duke of Norfolk (4 Madd. 503). As to the effect of the owner of the estate being abroad, and of process being prayed when he should come within the jurisdiction ; Browne v. Blount (2 Russ. & Myl. 83); The King of Spain v. Hullett (3 Sim. 338); Kirwan v. Daniel (7 Hare, 347 ; and see Muno.z v. De Tastet, 1 Beav. 109, n.) ; and as [129] to how far the former proceedings were binding on Sir George Bowyer, Allen v. Papworth (1 Ves. sen. 163; and Belt's Supplement, 92 ; and Needier v. Deelle, 1 Ch. Ca. 299). As to the operation of the Statute of Limitations, Coppin v. Gray (1 Y. & Coll. (C. C.) 205); Purcett v. Blennerhassett (3 Jones & Lat. 24); Forster v. Thompson (4 Dru. & War. 303). As to the right to an account against a mortgagor in possession, and his agents, Bernei/ v. Snwell (1 Jac. & W. 650); Parker v. (Jalcraft (6 Madd. 11); Gresley v. Adderley (1 Swanst. 573); Thomas v. Brigstocke (4 Russ. 64). (1) It is necessary to add that the date of the conveyance from Sir George Bowyer to Rowe (the creditors' deed), referred to in 17 Beav. 15...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Between Robert Knight since deceased and His Executors by amendment, and Richard Tomkinson, Plaintiffs; and George Bowyer, John Thomas Groves and Emma, his Wife, Charles Pugh, The Rev George Frazer Mathews and Ann Martha, his Wife, late Ann Martha Bridger, Edward Kynaston Bridger, Wilson Lomer, Charles Bridger, Charles King, Alexander Donovan, Samuel Sturgis, William Whitfield, Harriett Huntingford (since dismissed), John Samuel Bowles, George Warner, The Rev. John Tunnard, Clerk, John Taylor, John Matthews, and Sir George Bowyer, Baronet, Defedants
...which have several times been before the Court, in the suits of Hele v. Lord Bexley (reported 11 Beav. 537; 15 Beav. 340; 17 Beav. 14, and 20 Beav. 127). The length of the case renders it convenient to adopt the careful statement of the facts contained in the [610] judgment of the Court, an......
-
Knight v Bowyer
...it, go in satisfaction of the annuities. This question was raised on the pleadings and decided ; ffele v. Lord Buxky (17 Beav. 14, 29; 20 Beav. 127, 131). We are entitled to have interest allowed on the judgment. 1 & 2 Viet. c. 110, s. 17, gives interest on all judgments. The Plaintiffs say......