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/ssactsengr0898 and id is 1 raw text is: THE VICE-CHANCELLOR' [Sir W. Page Wood]. I am hot aware of 'any authority
for an application of this nature. The Plaintiff is the owner of the legal estate, which
is vested in himself, and he has, upon the strength of that estate, successfully resisted
an ejectment. The Court is asked to interfere for the purpose of preventing annoy-
ances to property by a mere stranger-a protection which there are other jurisdic-
tions perfectly competent to afford. [371] It is not in such a case that a bill of peace
is applicable. Such bills, which it is said may be brought to quiet possession after a
right has been repeatedly determined at law, stand upon a different footing. In a
recent case before the Lords Justices (a dispute between several gas companies at
Sheffield) their Lordships refused to interfere by way of injunction, although annoy-
ance and injury of the most serious kind were alleged to be taking place, and to be
apprehended.
Motion refused.(1)
[372] CATTLIN v. BROWN. July 20, 21, August 3, 1853.
[S. C. 1 Eq. R. 550; 1 W. R. 533. See In re Moseley's Trusts, 1871, L. R. 11 Eq. 505;
Bentinck v. Dzke of Portland, 1877, 7 Ch. D. 700; Pearks v. Moseley, 1880, 5 App.
Cas. 722; In re R ussell [1895], 2 Ch. 703.]
After a devise to A. for life, with remainder to all and every the child and children
of A. for their lives, in equal shares, a devise over, after the decease of any or
either of such child or children, of the part or share of him, her or them so dying,
unto his, her or their child or children, begotten or to be begotten, and to his, her
or their heirs for ever, as tenants in common, is good as to the children of such
children of A. as were living at the death of the testator, for the gift to them must
take effect, if at all, within the limits allowed by law; and the gift to every member
of the class of children is single and independent of the gift to every other member
of the same class, and cannot be affected by the result of the gift as to such other
members.
The question arose upon a devise by Frances Bannister, who died in 1805, to
(1) See Davenport v. Davenport, 7 Hare, 217, shewing circumstances the very
opposite of those in the above case-an application by a party claiming, but not
having established a legal title, and being out of possession, and in which it is not the
principle of this Court to interpose. These examples of extreme yet contrasted cases,
beyond the limits of equitable relief, exhibit and illustrate the rules by which it is
governed.
It may be a question whether bills of peace and bills to quiet possession are not of
that class of subjects with regard to which the jurisdiction of the Court is now almost
obsolete, and which was only suited to a state of society in which the ordinary admin-
istration of justice was less regular and certain. See 1 Spence, 684. In 1 Van Hey-
thusen's Eq. Dr. p. 611, there is a well-known precedent of an information and bill, in
the nature of a bill of peace, in which several of the inhabitants of a district, uncon-
nected with each other except by that circumstance, are made Defendants. It is
probable that such a form of suit, which was admitted in the case of tithe suits up to
the time of their cessation, would at this day be deemed oppressive on Defendants.
A remarkable example of an early attempt to extend or to abuse the practice of the
Court, which, in some few cases, allowed claims against distinct persons to be made the
subject of the same suit, is mentioned in the Diary of Narcissus Luttrell, which has
been brought to light by the notice of Mr. Macaulay, and recently printed (Oxford,
1857, vol. 1, p. 197). It took place in the time of Lord Nottingham. A bill in
Chancery was this term preferred by a widow against 500 persons, to answear what
moneys they ow'd her husband; the bill was above 3000 sheets of paper, to the wonder
of most people ; but the Lord Chancellor looking on it as vexatious, for it would cost
each Defendant a £100 the copyeing out, he dismissed the bill, and ordered Mr. New-
man, the councellour, whose hand was to it, to pay the Defendants the charges they
have been att.
1319
CATTLIN TV. BROWN'
11 HAREt, 371,](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0898&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)