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/ssactsengr0889 and id is 1 raw text is: WYLLIE V. ELLICE
THz VICE-CHACELLOR, without calling upon the counsel for the Plaintiffs,
refused the motion, with costs.
May 31. At the hearing, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Bloxam and Mr. MOxOn, for the
Defendants the trustees, and representatives of deceased trustees, contended that the
bill could not be supported by any proof of any fact which occurred after the original
bill was filed, and was introduced by amend-[504]-ment: Wray v. Hutdinson (2 Myl.
& K. 235), Picingtn v. Wignal (2 Madd. 240). The case of Humphreys v. Humphreys
(3 P. Wins. 349) was not an authority to the contrary; for that case was overruled
by Lord Hardwicke in Brown v. Higden (1 Atk. 291).
THE VICCHANCELLOR (Sir James Wigram]. The cases cited are all cases in
which the Plaintiff sought to add by amendments facts which occurred after the
filing of the original bill, and to obtain relief founded upon such new facts. In the
present case the title of the Plaintiffs to the relief which they seek in this suit is in
no respect dependent upon the fact that the Defendant, Wainman Holmes, has
become the legal personal representative of Thomas Holmes. If it be found neces-
sary, in the progress of a cause, that the estate of a deceased person should be
represented in the suit, and that representative can only be created by going to the
Ecclesiastical Court, the bill must always be dismissed at the hearing if, as it is con-
tended in this ease, letters of administration, obtained after the institution of the
suit, are not sufficient to enable the Court to make a decree binding the estate which
is so represented. That, however, has not been the practice. I am not called upon
to say what the effect of the objection might be in the case of a sole Plaintiff averring
that he was administrator of a deceased person, and suing in that character if it
appeared he was not such administrator.
.Tune 1. The Court made a decree for an account.
[505] WYLuc v. ELLIcE. Jan. 28, Feb. 26, 1848.
[See Howard v. Earl of Shrewsbury, 1874, L. I. 17 Eq. 400.]
A party entering upon and taking the rents and profits of an infant's estate may be
sued at law as a trespasser, or in equity as the bailiff, guardian and trustee of the
infant, at the election of the Plaintiff.
Where it ap pears that several persons entered on and held the estate of an infant,
one of such persons cannot be sued in equity as his bailiff, guardian or trustee for
an account of the rents and profits of the estate, without making parties to the
suit the others of such persons.
By the effect of the 37th General Order of August 1841 the answer put in by a
Defendant to an original bill, although it extends to matters retained in the
amended bill, does not preclude the Defendant from demurring generally to such
amended bill, by overruling the demurrer, as it would have been held to do
before that order was made.
The original bill was filed in March 1847 by William Morison Wyllie against the
surviving trustees and the representatives of deceased trustees appointed by the will
of George Morison, for an account of the rents and profits of an estate called Cour-
land Castle, in the island of Tobago, and of the hire and compensation monies for
certain slaves. The Plaintiff claimed one-fourth part of such rents, profits and
proceeds from the year 1827, as heir at law of his mother, one of the tenants in
common of the property in question, under a settlement made in June 1808. The
case made by the Plaintiff is more fully set forth below, in stating the contents of
the re-amended bill. The representatives of the three other tenants in common were
Defendants to the original bill. The Defendant, Edward Ellice, one of the trustees,
put in his answer to the original bill. The bill was then amended, and the same
Defendant put in his answer to the amended bill. The bill was then further amended,
and by this amendment the names of all the Defendants other than Edward Ellice
were struck out.
The re-amended bill stated a settlement of the 13th June 1808, whereby George
1264
6 ELL=. 10L](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0889&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)