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/ssactsengr0772 and id is 1 raw text is: the client to obtain professional advice with safety: [475] beyond what is absolutely
necessary for this purpose, it ought not to be allowed to curtail that most important
and valuable power of a Court of Equity, the power of compelling a discovery.
In this case all the parties interested in the documents are virtually before the
Court, the Defendants representing the whole partnership; and the Defendants have
the actual possession of the documents. These two circumstances are not to be
found combined in any case where the production and inspection of documents has
been refused upon the ground of the interest of other parties than the immediate
Defendants in the documents of which the inspection has been asked, or upon the
grounds connected with the possession; and, under such circumstances, I think there
is no principle which exempts documents so circumstanced from inspection.
With regard to the character of the papers, the objection to production upon the
ground that they relate to the matters in dispute in the cause, and arose out of
communications between the parties themselves with a view to their defence in the
suit, is not supported either upon principle or authority. The appeal must
therefore be dismissed, and with costs.
[476] NEATE V. PINK. Nov. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 1850; Nov. 4, 1851.
[S. C. 15 Sim. 450. Explained, Brocklebank v. East London Railway Company, 1879,
12 Ch. D. 839.]
The trustee and executor of A. B., the owner of one moiety of a plantation in Jamaica,
took a lease of the other moiety from E. and F., the owners of it, at a certain rent,
and with covenants to keep in repair, &c. A suit was subsequently instituted in
England, by the parties interested under the will of A. B., for the execution of the
trusts of the will, and certain parties in Jamaica were appointed receivers 'and
managers of the estates of A. B. These parties entered into possession of the
entire plantation, and remitted the proceeds to the consignees in England appointed
in the suit, who paid the sums received into Court. No rent having, for many
years, been received by E. and F., in respect of their moiety of the plantation, a
petition was presented by them for payment out of the funds in Court of the
arrears of rent due, and also of a sum which they claimed in respect of dilapida-
tions during the receivers' occupation. E. and F. were not parties to the suit.
Held, that, notwithstanding that some of the parties interested under the will of
A. B. were under disability, yet that they were bound by the occupation of the
receivers, and that E. and F. were entitled to an order for payment of the arrears
of rent, and to a reference in respect of the dilapidations.
Under the direction in an order of reference, with liberty to state special circum-
stances, the Master is not restricted to special circumstances relating to the precise
subject of inquiry referred to him.
These were two appeal petitions by Messrs. Fletcher and Yates, who were
strangers to the suit, and by the Plaintiffs in the suit, against two orders of the
Vice-Chancellor of England, made on the 1st December 1846 and on the 6th
November 1849 respectively. The case is reported on the hearing, when the first of
these orders was made, in the 15th volume of Mr. Simons's Reports, page 450.
The facts of the case are as follow :-Jobn Hiatt, the testator mentioned in the
pleadings, was at the time of making his will, as well as at the time of his decease,
seised of one undivided moiety of an estate in Jamaica, called the Fellowship Hall
estate, and the slaves, stock and plantation, utensils and implements thereon, and of
other estates in the same island; and the Appellants, Messrs. Fletcher and Yates,
were seised of the other undivided moiety, called the Byndloss moiety.
[477] John Hiatt appointed John Pink executor and trustee of his will, with
power to manage, conduct, carry on, and improve my residuary estate to the best
advantage. From the death of John Hiatt down to the commencement of the lease
hereinafter mentioned, the estate was worked by John Pink, as representing Hiatt's
moiety, jointly with Philip Jacquet, the person employed on behalf of the Appellants,
344
NEATE V. PINK
3 MAC. & 0. 475.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0772&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)