Wood v Wood
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 May 1840 |
| Date | 18 May 1840 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 160 E.R. 951
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER IN EQUITY.
[135] memorandum. On the 20th April, 1840, Jeffiies Spranger, Esq, one of the Masters of the Court of Exchequer, died ; and on the 28th of the same month he was succeeded in his office by the Hon, Eobert Campbell Scarlett. wood v. WOOD. April 30th, May 18th, 1840.-Where the Court gives leave to amend by adding parties, the power so given is m no case to be considered illusory ; and therefore, where it is ntcesaary to read evidence against the new party, the plaintiff, notwithstanding the order is merely to amend, may file a supplemental bill; and he may incorporate in such bill any other matter which might, independently of the order to amend, be the subject of a supplemental bill. In this, case the plaintiffs, in consequence of the order obtained by them on the 27th June, 1839 (ante, vol. 3, p. 580), instead of amending their bill, filed a supplemental bill, praying relief against all the real estates of John Worthington, and a declaration that a particular estate which he had devised to be sold was subject to a lien for part of the purchase-money remaining unpaid. With reference to this last-mentioned relief the official assignee of Isaac Worthington, the son and executor of John Worthington, was made a defendant to the suit It appeared that Isaac Worthington had an option under his father's will to purchase this estate, and it was aBeged that he had contracted to do so, but had left part of the purchase-money unpaid, aad afterwards became bankrupt. He had since died, and his representatives were brought before the Court. The order of the 27th June being that the bill should be amended before the first day of Hilary Teiui or be dismi&sed with costs, d motion was now made that the 952 WOOD V. WOOD 4 Y & C. EX. 136* Master might be directed to tax the costs of the suit pursuant to the order, including the costs of filing the supplemental bill, and that such costs might be paid by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs not having complied with the order to amend, and that if necessary the supplemental bill might be taken off the file. [136] Mr. Simpkinson and Mr. Kenyon Parker, for the motion, said that this supplemental bill had been filed on the authority of Greenwood v. Atkinson (5 Sim. 419), but that if that case was of any authority it only extended to supplemental bills for the purpose of bringing parties before the Court, and not so the introduction of new matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial