HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0072 and id is 1 raw text is: SMITH V. DURANT-BROOK V. BROOK [1861]
I have carefully read the judgments in the court below, and think that the reasons
given by the Judge Ordinary and Mr. Justice Williams greatly outweigh the obser-
vations made by Mr. Baron Bramwell, and that the Court did well to dismiss the
petition: I must therefore advise your Lordships that this appeal should be dismissed.
This being a case ex parte, nothing is to be said about costs.
Lord Chelmsford, referring to what he had said in the course of the argument,
concurred with the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Kingsdown was of the same opinion.
Order appealed from affirmed, and appeal dismissed.-Lords' Journals, 11 April
1861.
[192] MARIA SMITH, and Another,-Appellants; GEORGE DURANT, and Others,-
Respondents [April 18, 1861].
[Mews' Dig. i. 352. S.C. 31 L.J.Ch. 383.]
Practice-DismissaZ of Appeal.
When an Appellant does not appear to support his appeal, it may, on the
application of the Respondent, be dismissed, with costs.
On this case being called on-
Mr. Roundell Palmer stated, that he appeared for some of the numerous Respond-
ents, others being represented by Mr. Selwyn. The Appellants had not lodged
their case. An application had, therefore, been made by the Respondents to the
Appeal Committee, and the Respondents had been allowed the option whether they
would have the case heard ex parte, or would allow the appeal to be merely dismissed
for non-prosecution. In order to prevent any future proceeding, the Respondents
elected to have it heard ex parte, and if their Lordships desired it, he was ready to
state the nature of the case (see Jones v. Cannock, 3 H.L. Cas. 700). And at all
events he was by the practice entitled to ask their Lordships to dismiss the appeal,
with costs, Martin v. lYArcy (id. 698).
The Lords directed the Appellants to be formally called at the bar.
This was done; no one appeared to answer.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Campbell).-It the appeal was simply dismissed for
non-prosecution, the Appellant might apply to bring it forward again; but if the
Respondents appear, and ask for judgment, that cannot be done.
Mr. Palmer.-That is the course which the Respondents now adopt; it is the
duty of the Appellant to show error in the court below.
The Lord Chancellor-The precedents seem to be quite conclusive. There was a
similar case in 1848 (Wood v. Young, Lords' Journals, 26 June 1848).
Appeal dismissed, with costs. Lords' Journals, 18 April 1861.
[193] JAMES W. BROOK and Others,-Appellants; CHARLES BROOK and Others
and the ATTORNE-GENERAL,-Respondents [Feb. 25, 26, 28, March 1,
18, 1861].
[Mews' Dig. iii. 478; vii. 626, 630, 633, 635, 649; viii. 216. S.C. 7 Jur. N.S. 422:
4 L.T. 93; 9 W.R. 461; 5 Rul. Cas. 783; and, below, 27 L.J.Ch. 401; 3 Sni. and
G. 481. Considered and acted upon, as to conflict of laws, in In re Alisom's
Trusts, 1874, 31 L.T. 639; and Sottomayor v. De Barros, 1877, 2 P.D. 87; 3
P.D. 6. As to marriage with deceased wife's sister, adopted in Howartk v.
Mills, 1866, L.R. 2 Eq. 392; and Pawuson v. Brown, 1879, 13 Ch.D. 205. As to
ex-territorial application of English Acts, cf. Whicker v. Hume, 7 H.LC. 134, and
note thereto.]
Ix H.LC., 192](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0072&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)