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/ssactsengr0744 and id is 1 raw text is: MUTTER V. CHAUVEL
I think that, having a Landaff probate only, they would not be sued, as the execu-
tors by representation of John Smith, by a creditor of John Smith. I apprehend
that they must first be compelled to prove Morgan's will in Canterbury.
I find no authority upon these questions, though I have made search and
inquiry. The principle, upon which my opinion is founded, is, that, in order to
shew that the executor of an executor is entitled to administer the goods of the
first testator, it must be shewn by legal evidence that he is the executor of the de-
ceased executor. Of this probate alone is evidence; and I think that a Landaff
probate is not evidence that the executor of the second testator was executor out
of Landaff.
MUTTER v. CHAUVEL. Rolls. June 28, 30, July 7, 25, 1828.
Where much expense had been incurred in the suit, and it appeared defective in
form at the hearing, the Court directed the cause to stand over, with liberty
to file a supplemental bill to correct the form.
The Plaintiff, in 1815, filed his bill, as being nominated by his father, who
claimed the equitable right of nomination to the church of Little Stanmore, against
the Defendant Chauvel, who was the incumbent in possession, and certain other
persons who claimed the right of presentation, for an account of the rents and
profits from the time of his nomination.
In 1824: the Plaintiff amended his bill, and stated, that the equitable ight of
nomination, which his father had claimed, had, by the effect of his father's will,
and a certain deed of release executed by his sisters, become vested in him, the
Plaintiff : and the amended bill prayed that it might be declared that he was entitled
to the equitable right of nomination.
At the hearing of the cause, the Master of the Rolls was of opinion, without
entering into the merits of the case, that the title of the Plaintiff to the incumbency
of Little Stanmore could not be sustained, by reason of the form of the instrument
executed by the Plaintiff's father : and, it appearing, upon reference to the proofs
and admissions in the cause, that the deed of release from his sisters to the Plaintiff,
which formed an essential part of the Plaintiff's title to the right of nomination
which his father had claimed, was not executed till the 12th of [43] May 1828,
the Master of the Rolls was of opinion, that the Court could not enter into the
consideration of the Plaintiff's claim to the right of nomination; because, as the,
record then stood, a decree, affirming his title to the nomination, would have re-
ference to the date of the bill, and would affirm title in the Plaintiff at that time.
But the Master of the Rolls, stating that great expense had been incurred in the
proceedings, and that it would, therefore, be desirable for all parties that the question
of the right of nomination should be decided in this suit, directed the cause to stand
over, and that the Plaintiff should be at liberty to file a supplemental bill for the
purpose of regularly introducing the release from his sisters.
Mr. Sugden and Mr. Norton, for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Home and Mr. Phillimore, for Mr. Chauvel.
Mr. Pepys and Mr. Tinney, for trustees who concurred with Mrg Chauvel in
resisting the claim of the Plaintiff,
[441 In re REDMUND. Rolls. July 25, 1828,
[S. C. 6 L. J. Ch. (0. S.) 183.]
A clerical error in the enrolment of the specification of a patent will be amended;
Letters patent for making and using a certain invention were granted on the
9th of November 1821, and the specification was duly enrolled. No office copy
had yet been applied for or delivered out.
Tfhe patentee stated by a petition, that, within tne last month, he had discovered
that the copying clerk, in engrossing the specification and the plan annexed to
it, had by mistake transposed the numbers by which, in the specification, reference
5 RUSS. 43.
943](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0744&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)