HE following rules of practice have several times been stated by the Master of the Rolls on this and other applications to discharge a Receiver and vacate his recognizances. (a) It is convenient that they should be generally known.
First. If the order directs the payment of the balance into Court, the same order may direct the recognizance to be vacated upon payment of such balance into Court, such payment being shewn by the certificate of the Accountant-General.
Second. But if the payment is directed to be made to a person, or in any other mode than into Court, then, after the payment has been made, it is to be proved, and a second petition is necessary for the purpose of obtaining an order to vacate the recognizances upon the proof being given. On the second occasion, however, the matter need not be mentioned in court, but the petition being left at the Secretary's office, together with proper evidence of the payment of the balance, the order will be made without further attendance.
Rules of practice upon applications to discharge Revacate their recognizances. If the balance is to Court, the be paid into same order may direct the recognizances to be vacated;
ceivers and
but, if the balance is to be paid in any other mode, a
second application be
comes neces
See COSTS, 4.
EJECTMENT.
SUPPLEMENTAL BILL, 2.
TAXATION, 18.
ADMINISTRATION.
See COSTS, 8. 10, 11.
CREDITORS' SUIT.
TENANT FOR LIFE.
TRUST.
ADMINISTRATOR.
See FRAUD, 1.
1. By the settlement made on the
marriage of an English lady with
a foreigner, her Bank annuities
were settled in trust for her, her
husband, and their children; and
her real estates were directed to
be sold and the produce held on
similar trusts. And it was agreed
between all the parties, and the
husband covenanted, that in case
any real or personal estate should
vest in the wife, or in him in her
right, he, as far as he lawfully
could, would, either alone or in
concurrence with his wife, settle
the same upon the trusts, and sub-
ject to the powers, &c. therein
expressed concerning the Bank
annuities. Real estates descended
on the wife. The husband and
some of the children were aliens.
Held, that the lands descended
were bound by the covenant, and
S$ 3
that
that they ought to be sold and | 3. The 66th Order of May 1845 is
the produce invested on the same
trusts as the Bank annuities. Mas-
ter v. De Croismar. Page 184
2. A patentee applied to the Court
of Chancery to stay all proceed-
ings on a scire facias to repeal
the patent, or that a nolle prosequi
might be entered, on the ground,
that the prosecutor was an alien:
Held, that the Court had no au-
thority to interfere in the matter.
The Queen v. Prosser.
306
3. An illegal monopoly is a public
grievance, and the Crown having
been informed of such a grievance,
and having the power and duty to
remove it, if it be such, ought not
to be disabled from directing the
necessary proceedings to ascertain
the truth, because the information
was given by an alien. Ibid.
applicable to bills of discovery.
Peile v. Stoddart. Page 591
4. A Plaintiff took exceptions, which
he gave notice of abandoning:
Held that he had thereby short-
ened the time allowed for amend-
ing as of course.
Ibid.
5. A Plaintiff, after the time allowed,
obtained an order of course to
amend. The order was discharged
with costs, and the amended bill
was ordered to be taken off the
file.
Ibid.
Pending the usual reference to
enquire which of two suits is most
beneficial, it is irregular to obtain
an order of course to amend.
Fletcher v. Moore.
617
1. A Defendant put in an insufficient
answer, and the Plaintiff obtained
an order of course to amend,
and that the Defendant might
answer the amendments and ex-
ceptions together. No amend-
ment was made within fourteen
days. Held, that a second order
to amend could not be obtained,
ex parte. Dolly v. Challin.
2. Under all orders to amend a
Plaintiff must amend within four-
teen days, as where he obtains
leave to amend on the allowance
of a demurrer, and no time is then
limited. Semble. Armitstead v.
Durham.
1. The first application for time to
answer is not of course, but must
(unless the facts be admitted by
the Plaintiff) be supported by
affidavit shewing sufficient cause
and due diligence. Brown v.
Lee.
2. A Defendant submitting to an-
swer, cannot avail himself of the
38th Order of August 1841, and
decline to answer part of the bill,
on the ground that the bill is
wholly demurrable. Fisher v.
which they exercise over every 1. Explanation of the nature of
other suitor; and the Attorney-
General would not, any more than
any other suitor, be permitted to
prosecute any proceeding, which
was merely vexatious, or had no
legal object: but the Attorney-
General conducts the proceedings
on a scire facias according to his
own judgment and discretion, and
may, when he thinks fit, stay the
proceedings, or enter a nolle
prosequi. The control which the
Attorney-General exercises is
subject only to the responsibility
the relation between Banker and
Customer. Watts v. Christie. 546
Bankers have no lien on the de-
posit of a partner on his separate
account for a balance due to the
bank from a firm.
Ibid.
1. A., as surety to a firm signed a
joint and several bill of exchange
on the faith that B. would join as
co-surety. B. never signed it, but
Ss 4
A. was
|