The Rules and Practice of the Court of Chancery of Upper Canada; Comprising the Orders of 1850 and 1851, with Eplanatory [Sic] Notes Referring to the English Orders and Decisions

The Rules and Practice of the Court of Chancery of Upper Canada; Comprising the Orders of 1850 and 1851, with Eplanatory [Sic] Notes Referring to the English Orders and Decisions

List price: US$19.99

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. 1851 edition. Excerpt: ...refused to make an order to set down the cause pro confesso, but gave a day to show cause. (Courage vs. Wardell, 9 Jurist, 1055). An Order to amend is an abandonment of the Order to take the bill pro confesso. (Wcightman vs. Powell, 12 Jurist, 958).' A cause being set down pro confesso against an absconding defendant was struck out of the paper on account of Counsel's absence, and, on application of the Plaintiff alone, it was placed in the paper again. Harvey vs. Renon, 12 Jurist, 445). But it is apprehended that such ex-parte application would not be treated in the same manner, if the defendants had appeared by Counsel under the above 36th Order. Under the English Order 84, of 1845, answering to the above Order 38, the bond of the plaintiff himself may be held sufficient security, under the authority of Lett vs. Randall, 7 Jurist, 1075; where the plaintiff's own bond was held sufficient, under a provision of 1 W. 4.. ch. 36, similar to the provision of the above mentioned Orders. Still the Court has power, no doubt, to require further security, and, although this may seem hard on a plaintiff without means, a similar rule is enforced in the Queen's Bench under the absconding debtor's Act; and it often happens there that a plaintiff is stopped for want of the security. In that case, however, the security is expressly named in the statute. The point will remain uncertain until a case arises, on which it can be seen whether the authority of Lett vs. Randall will be followed. Under the 76th English Order of 1845, answering to the above Order 33, there are the following decisions. There being husband and wife defendants, and no Order for the wife to answer separately, the Order pro confesso should be against both (Alexander vs. Osborne, 16 Law...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 56 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 3mm | 118g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • Miami Fl, United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236539028
  • 9781236539021