Page images
PDF
EPUB

1835.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. The HABER

DASHERS' Company. :

ROLLS. June 17.

eva

M R. COOPER applied to the Court to vary the The attendw minutes of the decree by which it had been a referred to the Master to settle a scheme for the admi- General

before the nistration of the charity, so far as related to a direction, Master, upon that the Attorney-General should attend the inquiry a reference

to settle a before the Master. That direction had been introduced scheme for the by the Registrar in conformity with a rule laid down by ad

Oy of a charity, the late Master of the Rolls, that the Attorney-General may be dis

spensed with should attend before the Master in every case of in

in certain reference for the settlement of a scheme for the admi- cases..

A direction nistration of a charity. The Attorney-General attended for such atby counsel, and, where the charity fund was small, the tendance in a

case where the expense of the inquiry was considerably and unneces- charity fund

did not much sarily increased by a rigid adherence to this rule.

verence to this rule. 1

In

exceed 11001. the present case the fund, which had been given for was struck out

of the minutes the benefit of poor freemen of the Haberdashers' Com- of the decree. pany, did not much exceed 11001. The practice of the Vice-Chancellor was, not to require the attendance of of the Attorney-General, except when it was absolutely necessary.

The Master of the Rolls*, after conferring with the Registrar, said, he was of opinion that in this case the attendance of the Attorney General was not necessary, and that the direction for his attendance might therefore be struck out of the minutes.

[ocr errors]

1835.

ROLLS.

BARKER v. WARDLE. * April 1. Costs as be- THE bill was filed by simple contract creditors to tween solicitor

cor + have the testator's estate administered and their and client given out of debts paid. Under the decree specialty creditors the fund to a

came in and proyed debts to an amount exceeding the tract creditor value of the assets received. who was Plaintiff in a suit to

The cause having come on for further directions, administer bis deceased Mr. Barber, for the specialty creditors, objected to the debtor's es pointif he tate, although

Plaintiffs being allowed their costs, and be referred to the assets bad Young v. Everest. (a) proved insuf ficient to satisfy the

Mr. Pemberton and Mr. Turner, for the Plaintiffs, specialty creditors,

asked for their costs as between solicitor and client. Young v. Everest had been overruled by Larkins v. Paxton, (6)

The MASTER of the Rollst directed, that the Plaintiffs should have their costs as between solicitor and client out of the fund in Court,

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

1894.

LEES v. NUTTALL.

1834.

Feb. 19, 20. TN this case, which is reported, upon the hearing If an agent, at the Rolls, in 1 Russell and Mylne, 53, an appeal purchase an

employed to was brought by the Defendant, Nuttall, against the estate,

becomes the decree, so far as it affected him: the other Defendant, purchaser for Walker, did not appeal.

aus himself, he is

to be considered as a

trustee for his Mr. Bethell, for the Appellant, insisted upon his right for

upon his right principal.be to begin, on the ground that the appeal was only partial. Affirmed on

Odle The LORD CHANCELLOR, however, decided that it ad 232 901 was to be considered as substantially an appeal from the whole decree, and that the Plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to begin.

[graphic]
[ocr errors]

V

erucial 1

Mr. Pepys and Mr. K. Parker were accordingly heard for the Plaintiff; the Attorney-General, Mr. Wakefield, and Mr. Bethell, for the Appellant.

The LORD CHANCELLOR considered the case made by the bill to be fully established by the evidence, and affirmed the decision of the Court below.

1835.

1835. June 29.

In the Matter of the DE CLIFFORD Estates.

Before the THIS matter having again come before the Court (a)

Lords Commissioners.

on a petition to confirm the Master's report finding that George G. Blackwell was a trustee within the meaning of the act, and approving of a person to convey the estates to the petitioners,

LORD COMMISSIONER SHADWELL, after reading and considering the petition, made the order as prayed.

(a) See p. 624. supra.

:

AN

LAN
INDEX

TO

THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS.

ACCESS.
Access is such access as affords an

opportunity of sexual intercourse;
and where there is evidence of
such access between a husband
and wife within a period capable
of raising the legal presumption
as to the legitimacy of an after-
born child, the Court will not
direct an issue upon evidence
shewing the continued adulterous
intercourse of the wife with an-
other man, and the improbability
of the husband being the father,
but will declare the legitimacy of
the child. · Bury v. Phillpot.

Page 349
See New TRIAL.

ADMINISTRATOR.
Under the common decree against

an administrator, directing his
intestate's assets to be applied in
a due course of administration,
the Master is not entitled to go
into the consideration of transac-
tions between the administrator
and the other creditors which
might affect the administrator's
right of retainer for a debt due to
himself. Spicer v.James. Page 387

See LUNATIC, 1.

SEPARATE Estate, 1.

ACCOUNT.
See CORPORATION.

AGENT.
1. An order for the taxation of

an agent's bill cannot be obtained
as of course by a solicitor ; nor
can the rule for bringing the
amount of the agent's bill into
court upon such application be
dispensed with, except under spe-

VOL. II.

3 H

cial

« PreviousContinue »