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/ssactsengr0761 and id is 1 raw text is: TWYFORD V. TRAIL
proposes to prove the affirmative of his proposition, and so to support his title to
compel them to pay the costs of the suit.
Upon what ground can a Defendant be entitled so to defeat the case alleged against
him, by refusing to answer the allegations in the bill, and putting in a general denial
of the equity asserted by the bill 7 Glassinglon v. Thwaites (2 Russ. 458) and other
cases were cited upon the point: but Do Beauvoir v. Rhodes, not reported in that stage
of it, more precisely meets this case. There the Plaintiff filed his bill to set aside a
building lease, and made the attorneys, who had been employed in the [644] trans-
action by the person under whom he claimed, Defendants to the bill, charging that
they had been parties to the alleged fraud, and had secured to themselves a benefit by
getting from the tenant a contract to employ them in preparing the sub-leases, and
praying that they might pay the costs of the suit. Those Defendants put in a dis-
claimer, which Sir John Leach, then Vice-Chancellor, ordered to be taken off the file,
upon the ground that the Plaintiff prayed relief against them, and that they could not
escape by simply disclaiming. In that case, as in this, the Defendants were made
parties upon an alleged claim of interest, and upon a demand for costs arising from
imputed misconduct. With respect to the former, the disclaimer might be sufficient,
but to the latter it is wholly inapplicable.
This authority appears to me to be directly in point; but no authority was, in my
opinion, necessary to support the order of the Vice-Chancellor. I am of opinion that
the appeal must be dismissed, with costs.
[645] Between SAMUEL TWYFORD and DORA his Wife, Plaintiffs; and HENRY TRAIL
(since deceased), FRANCIS TIPPING HALL (out of the jurisdiction of the Court),
and JOHN MAITLAND and DOROTHEA his Wife, GEORGE AUGUSTUS SIMPSON,
HENRY TRAIL SIMPSON, and RICHARD HENRY KING, Defendants; and between
SAMUEL T\WYFORD and DORA his Wife, Plaintiffs; and JOHN STUDHOLME
BROWNRIGG, JAMES COSMO MELVILL, and HENRY EDWARD TWYFORD, Defendants.
July 27, 1838.
When it is referred back to a Master to review his report, he is at liberty to receive
further evidence.
A Master having found a certain sum due from certain parties, those parties took two
exceptions to the Master's report, by the first of which they submitted that the
Master ought not to have so found and certified as he had found and certified ; and
by the other of which they submitted that he ought either to have found nothing
due from them, or that a certain sum, and no more, was due from them; and they,
at the same time, presented a petition praying a reference back to the Master to
review his report, with certain directions as to particular items of account. The
Vice-Chancellor made one order on the petition and the exceptions, by which he
merely allowed the exceptions, and referred it back to the Master to review his
report. Held, that, under this order, the only inquiry which the Master could
make was, whether anything, or a sum not exceeding the sum mentioned in the
second exception, was due.
By the decree made at the hearing of the first-mentioned cause, on the 20th of
August 1834, it was (amongst other things) declared that it was the duty of William
Hall and James Archibald Simpson, in the pleadings [646] named, to have withdrawn
from the house of Palmer & Co., of Calcutta, the moneys belonging to the estate of
the testator George Augustus Simpson, and that the estates of William Hall and
James Archibald Simpson, respectively, were responsible for the loss which had been
sustained in consequence of their having omitted to do so ; and it was referred to the
Master to ascertain the amount of such loss, with liberty to state special circumstances ;
and it was also referred to the Master to take an account of the personal estate of
George Augustus Simpson come to the hands of William Hall and James Archibald
Simpson, and an account of the personal estate of William Hall and James Archibald
Simpson respectively, received by Henry Trail, their legal personal representative in
England.
By the decree in the second cause, dated the 22d of July 1836, it was directed that
1075
$ XY. &, OR. 6H.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0761&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)