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/ssactsengr0781 and id is 1 raw text is: EX PARTE HALFORD
LORD CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
[50] Ex parte HALFORD. March 31, 1836.
Mortgagor's Costs of appearing before the Master under 1 W. IV. c. 60. Lunatic
Mortgagee.
In this case a petition had been presented by the mortgagor under 1 W. IV. c.
60, to have a reconveyance of an estate which had been mortgaged to a person who
had afterwards become lunatic; and the usual reference had been made to the
Master.
The mortgagor (who appeared before the Master), now applied that his costs of
appearing might be paid out of the lunatic's real estate.
Mr. Morley, for the mortgagee, contended, that there was not the least necessity
for the mortgagor's appearance, and that, consequently he ought not to be allowed his
costs.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR [Cottenham] being of the same opinion ruled accord-
ingly.
Counsel for the mortgagee.-Mr. Morley.
Counsel for the mortgagor.-Mr. Wilcock.
Case cited.-Ex parte Richards, 1 Jac. & W. 264.
[51] NOTE.-We presume that, for the same reason, the mortgagor would not be
allowed his costs of appearing to confirm the Master's report.
[51] MILWARD v. LYSONS. March 31, 1836.
Contract for repurchasing an Annuity. Whether Policy of Assurance is included.
This was an appeal to discharge an order of the Vice-Chancellor, by which the
Defendant, Mrs. Lysons (who was the representative of Colonel Gardener), was
restrained from proceeding in an action at law to recover the amount of a policy of
assurance for £2000 which had been effected on the life of Colonel Gardner. The
facts were these :-Mr. Milward had granted a rent charge, by way of annuity, to
Colonel Gardner, and the colonel ensured his life. Afterwards a contract was entered
into between the colonel and Mr. Milward for releasing the annuity for the sum of
£3500. The contract was negotiated through the intervention of a Mr. Barrow.
The question was, whether, in this negotiation, it was intended to include the
policy of assurance?
His LORDSHIP [Lord Cottenham], in giving judgment, went through the evidence,
(which was at great length, consisting of affidavits and letters), and said that, though
it was unnecessary, in support of an injunction, that the evidence must be quite
conclusive, yet it was necessary that it should beprimelfacie; but, in the present case,
there did not appear to have been any expressions which would warrant the supposi-
tion that it was intended to include the policy of assurance in the contract. He must,
therefore, dissolve the injunction.
Counsel.-Mr. Jacob, Mr. Wigram, Mr. Knight.
[51] BROWN v. THORNTON.
[S. C. 1 My. & Cr. 243; 40 E. R. 368.]
Document referred to by Answer. Order to produce at a Trial at Law.
This was a motion on appeal from an order of the Vice-Chancellor, in which he
had ordered a document to be read on a trial at common law which had been referred
to in an answer to a bill of discovery.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR [Cottenham] deferred his judgment in order to enable the
counsel for the Defendant to seek for authorities against discharging the order.
220
IDONNELILY 50.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0781&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)