Reports of Cases Argues and Determined in the High Court of Chancery During the Time of Lord Chancellor Cottenham; By R. D. Craig, and T. J. Phillips

Reports of Cases Argues and Determined in the High Court of Chancery During the Time of Lord Chancellor Cottenham; By R. D. Craig, and T. J. Phillips

List price: US$20.40

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1842 edition. Excerpt: ...was a member having received a deposit of some iron from Raikes, had, by his directions, written a letter to Thornton, informing him that they held the iron at his disposal: after which a paramount claim to the iron was set up by Danilqffl Now the ground of the decision was, not merely that a letter had been written by Cravoshay to Thornton acknowledging his title, but that that letter had given to Thornton the same rights as against Cravoshay which Raikes had before, and consequently, that inasmuch as Cravoshay could not have made Raikes, from whom he originally received the iron, interplead with Daniloff, so neither could he make Thornton. It cannot, however, be doubted, but that Cravoshay might, notwithstanding the letter, have required Thornton to interplead with Raikes. And if so, neither the case of Crawshay v. Thornton, nor that of Hall v. Butler, which turned upon the same principle, can furnish any authority against the order now appealed from. It is true that the dealings between the stakeholder and one of the claimants may be of such a nature as to create rights and liabilities between them, which no litigation between those claimants alone could determine, and cases might, perhaps, be put, (a) 5 .$Ald,850. put, in which a court of equity would hesitate to decide upon the effect of such dealings, upon a motion for an injunction, or upon a demurrer to a bill of interpleader; but it does not therefore follow, that the mere fact of the stakeholder having dealt with, or written to, a party gives that party a right to say that he will have the opinion of a court of law as to the legal effect of what had been done or written. Your Lordship has lately decided the contrary in the case of Suart v. Welch (a), which shews that there is no...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 114 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 6mm | 218g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • Miami Fl, United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236512111
  • 9781236512116