ADDEND A. PAGE 26, n. 1, add: Lyman v. Bonney, 101 Mass. 562. 86. After line 22 from top, add: Where a bill is filed by a next friend on behalf of a person alleged to be of unsound mind, but who is really of sound mind, it will, on his application, be ordered to be taken off the file, and the next friend must pay the costs; those of the plaintiff as between solicitor and client, and those of the defendants as between party and party. Palmer v. Walesby, L. R. 3 Ch. Ap. 732, L.JJ. 87, n. 2, add: Wells v. Malbon, 31 Beav. 48; 8 Jur. N. S. 249; Heath v. Lewis, 10 Jur. N. S. 1093; 13 W. R. 128, V. C. S.; Re Insole, 85 Beav. 92; L. R. 1 Eq. 470; 11 Jur. N. S. 1011; Pratt v. Jenner, L. R. 1 Ch. Ap. 493; 12 Jur. N. S. 557, L.JJ.; Prole v. Soady, L. R. 3 Ch. Ap. 220, L. J. Lord Cairns ; Wilkinson v. Gibson, L. R. 4 Eq. 162, V. C. W.; Johnson v. Lander, L. R. 7 Eq. 228, M. R.; Botten v. Codd, W. N. (1869) 199, V. C. S. 87, note to "Like to a profession" in lines 17 and 18 from top: See as to this under present law, Evans v. Cassidy, 11 Ir. Eq. 243; Blake v. Blake, 4 Ir. Ch. 349; Re Metcalfe, 2 De G., J. & S. 122; 10 Jur. N. S. 287; 10 Jur. N. S. 224, M. R., and cases there cited. 90. Add to line 10 from top: Where a married woman sues as personal representative, her husband ought to be joined as a co-plaintiff with her. Burdick v. Garrick, L. R. 5 Ch. Ap. 233, L. C. & L. J. G. 92, n. 1, add: or her own creditors at the time of her marriage. Barnard v. Ford, Garrick v. Ford, L. R. 4 Ch. Ap. 247, L. JJ. 92, n. 2, add: Sotheran v. Smear, W. N. (1868) 296, V. C. S. 95, n. 1, add: Ireland v. Trembath, 13 L. T. N. S. 629, V. C. S. 96. After line 6 from top: Where in consequence of the husband being resident abroad, there was a difficulty in procuring the usual joint affidavit of no settlement: Elliott v. Remmington, 9 Sim. 502; Wilkinson v. Schneider, L. R. 9 Eq. 423, V. C. J.; and where he refused to join in the affidavit, Anon., 3 Jur. N. S. 839, V. C. W.; the fund was paid out on an affidavit of no settlement made by the wife alone, coupled with evidence, by affidavit, of the above circumstances; and where the fund had been assigned, and both husband and wife refused to make the affidavit except upon terms to which the assignee could not accede, the fund was ordered to be paid out on an affidavit of no settlement, to be made by some person likely to be well informed on the matter. Rowland v. Oakley, 14 Jur. 845, V. C. K. B. An affidavit of no settlement is also required where a fund is to be paid out to a widow. Elrington v. Elrington, 4 Drew. 645. 96, n. 11, add: Longbottom v. Pearce, 3 De G. & J. 545, n. (g); White v. Herrick, L. R. 4 Ch. Ap. 345, L.JJ. a 97, n. 2, add: Penford v. Mould, L. R. 4 Eq. 502, V. C. W. 98, n. 6, at end of line 3: White v. Herrick, L. R. 4 Ch. Ap. 345, L.JJ. 100, n. 4, at period in line 10: White v. Herrick, L. R. 4 Ch. Ap. 345, L.JJ. 101, n. 7, add: Re Roberts, W. N. (1869) 88; 17 W. R. 639, V. C. M. 102, n. 8, add: Re Suggitt, L. R. 3 Ch. Ap. 215, L.JJ. 102, n. 9, add: L. R. 4 Ch. Ap. 407, L.JJ. 103, n. 3, adu: or by the husband. Jenner v. Morris, 1 Dr. & Sm. 218: affirmed, 3 105, n. 5, add: Barrow v. Barrow, 18 Beav. 529; 5 De G., M. & G. 782; Spirett v. 108, n. 2, add in line 6 after "S. C.": L. R. 4 Ch. Ap. 407, L.JJ. And at end: Re 108, n. 5, add: And see Beardmore v. Gregory, 2 H. & M. 491; 11 Jur. N. S. 363. 111, n. 6, add: As to waiver of right to apply for security, see Drinan v. Mannix, 3 112, n. 7, in line 2, before see: "Macann v. Borradaile, W. N. (1867) 283; 16 W. R. 113, n. 3, add: 4 W. R. 40, L.JJ.; Owens v. Dickenson, C. & P. 48, 54; 4 Jur. 1151; 116, n. 2, add: Prole v. Soady, L. R. 3 Ch. Ap. 220, L. J. Ld. Cairns. 119. After line 14 from top: An order for payment to an assignee of the husband and 119. After line 29 from top: It seems that the Court has power to bind a married 121, n. 2, add: Prole v. Soady, L. R. 3 Ch. Ap. 220, L.-J. Ld. Cairns. 122, n. 2, add: As to the effect of fraud on the part of the wife, see Re Lush, L. R. 4 122, n. 4, between " 4" and "see" in line 1: Prole v. Soady, L. R. 3 Ch. Ap. 220, L. J. Ld. Cairns; and see S. C. and Wilkinson v. Gibson, L. R. 4 Eq. 162, 125, n. 3, add: Pigott v. Pigott, L. R. 4 Eq. 549, V. C. W. 134, n. 3, line 3 after "440": and Attorney-General v. Edmunds, L. R. 6 Eq. 381, 135. After line 13 from top: The Attorney-General should be made a defendant 141, n. 3, add: Smith v. Weguelin, L. R. 8 Eq. 198, M. R. 142, n. 3, add: Gladstone v. Ottoman Bank, 1 H. & M. 495; 9 Jur. N. S. 246; Smith 152, n. 3, add: Palmer v. Stevens, 100 Mass. 461. 157, n. 2, add: Edmunds v. Waugh, also reported L. R. 1 Eq. 418, 419. 158, n. 1, in line 4, after "362": Pepper v. Henzell, 2 H. & M. 486; 10 Jur. N. S. 840. 161, n. 1, add: No guardian ad litem need be appointed for an infant defendant in 173, n. 2, in line 5, after "417”: S. C. nom. Mostyn v. Brooke, L. R. 4 H. L. 304. 189. After line 6 from top: A married woman is not a necessary party to a bill seek- 213, n. 4, Beevor v. Luck, L. R. 4 Eq. 537, V. C. W. 216, n. 6, line 32 after “52 Maine, 511": So a surviving partner may, unless there are special circumstances in the case, sue a debtor to the firm for an account without making the personal representatives of the deceased partner parties to the suit. Haig v. Gray, 3 De G. & S. 741. 219, n. 5, add: Palmer v. Stevens, 100 Mass. 461. 222, n. 2, in line 33 after "42": And so in a suit to obtain a declaration of forfeiture, an unascertained class taking on the forfeiture, are sufficiently represented by their trustees. White v. Chitty, 14 W. R. 366, V. C. W. 224, n. 6, line 6 after "M. R.": Peacock v. Saggers, 4 De G., F. & J. 406; Samson v. Samson, 18 W. R. 530, L.JJ. 235, n. 3, add: Barry v. Abbott, 100 Mass. 396. 266, n. 5, add: Egremont v. Thompson, L. R. 4 Ch. Ap. 448, L. C.; Williams v. Llanelly Railway & Dock Co., L. R. 10 Eq. 401, V. C. J. 274, n. 3, add: See Sheffield Waterworks v. Yeomans, L. R. 2 Ch. Ap. 8, L. C. 276, n. 5, add: Attorney-General v. Naylor, 1 H. & M. 809; 10 Jur. N. S. 231. 277, n. 1, add: Thomas v. Dunning, 5 De G. & S. 618. It is apprehended, however, that under the present practice, whenever the persons interested are so numerous that it is impracticable to make them all defendants, the Court will permit the case to proceed upon one or more of such persons, or of each class of them if there are several classes, being made defendants to represent the others. Richardson v. Larpent, 2 Y. & C. C. 507, 514; 7 Jur. 691; Pare v. Clegg, 29 Beav. 589, 602; 7 Jur. N. S. 1136; Bromley v. Williams, 32 Beav. 177; 9 Jur. N. S. 240; Hoole v. Great Western Railway Company, L. R. 3 Ch. Ap. 262, 273, L.JJ.; Cramer v. Bird, L. R. 6 Eq. 143, 148, M. R.; Pickering v. Williams, 15 W. R. 218, V. C. S. 277, n. 4, add: And so, to a bill by a vendor to establish his lien for unpaid purchasemoney, all the persons interested in the property who are subsequent in date to him, and who are to be foreclosed by him, must be made parties. AttorneyGeneral v. Sittingbourne & Sheerness Railway Company, 35 Beav. 268, 271; L. R. 1 Eq. 636, 639; Bishop of Winchester v. Mid Hants Railway Company, L. R. 5 Eq. 17, V. C. S.; Drax v. Somerset & Dorset Railway Company, 38 L. J. Ch. 232, M. R. 279, n. 1, in line 9 for "trustee " read "second purchaser." 279, n. 1, add: Where the original purchaser has agreed to share with other persons the profits to be made by the resale, such persons, whether necessary or not, are proper parties to a suit by the sub-purchaser against the original purchaser, to rescind the contract and obtain the return of sums paid on account of the purchase-money. Aberaman Iron Works v. Wickens, L. R. 4 Ch. Ap. 101, L. C.; and see Fenwick v. Bulman, L. R. 9 Eq. 165, V. C. S. 298, n. 2, add: Padley v. Lincoln Water Works Company, 2 M'N. & G. 68; 14 Jur. 299; Ponsford v. Swaine, 1 J. & H. 433. 311, n. 5, add: See Braund v. Earl of Devon, L. R. 3 Ch. Ap. 800. In re Lister's Hospital, 6 De G., M. & G. 184. 314, n. 5, add: The bill need not contain a specific allegation of the grounds for relief; it is sufficient if the grounds can be reasonably deduced from the facts stated. Knox v. Gye, 15 W. R. 628, L. C. 315, n. 3, add: Godfrey v. Tucker, also reported 38 Beav. 280. 324, n. 2. add: A creditor who had taken possession of the books of account and vouchers of the testator, and had proceeded to collect his debts, was considered a proper party to a suit for the administration of the estate. Earl Vane v. Rigden, 18 W. R. 308, V. C. M.; see, however, S. C., W. N. (1870) 210; 18 W. R. 1092, L. C. and L. J. James. 327, n. 6, add: It is no longer necessary to charge the evidence relied on, except for the purpose of procuring admissions. Per Sir W. P. Wood, in Mansell v. Feeney, 2 J. & H. 313, 318. Where, however, the question turns upon a particular fact not specifically alleged in the bill, and which the defendant has not had an opportunity of denying, it seems that the Court will direct an inquiry as to such fact. Weston v. Empire Assurance Association, L. R. 6 Eq. 23, M. R. 328, n. 2, add: The plaintiff cannot, if he fails in making out a case of fraud, pick out from the allegations in the bill facts which might, if not put forward as proofs of fraud, have warranted him in asking, and the Court in granting relief. Hickson v. Lombard, L. R. 1 H. L. 324. 346, n. 1: And see Smith v. Earl Brownlow, L. R. 9 Eq. 241, M. R.; Betts v. Thompson, W. N. (1870) 203; 18 W. R. 1099, M. R. 365, n. 5, add: When the agreement has been entered into by an agent for the plaintiff, an allegation that the plaintiff has been informed by his agent that a written agreement was executed, followed by statements referring to the agreement as actually made, will be a sufficient allegation of a written agreement. Heard v. Pilley, L. R. 4 Ch. Ap. 548, L.JJ. 369, n. 1, add: Grenville Murray v. Lord Clarendon, L. R. 9 Eq. 11, M. R. 382, n. 2, add: Where the plaintiff has rested the case for relief solely on the ground of fraud, he cannot, if he fails in establishing fraud, pick out, from the allegations in the bill, facts which might, if not put forward as proofs of fraud, have warranted the plaintiff in asking, and the Court in granting, relief. Hickson v. Lombard, L. R. 1 H. L. 324. 386, n. 4, add: Where the plaintiff was unable to fulfil an offer upon which the decree had been founded, the bill was dismissed, but without prejudice to any futtire proceedings which the plaintiff might think fit to take. Langton v. Waite, L. R. 4 Ch. Ap. 402, L.JJ. 387, n. 1, add: King of the Two Sicilies v. Wilcox, 1 Sim. N. S. 301; 15 Jur. 214. 393, n. 1, in line 3 after "132": Caton v. Coles, L. R. 1 Eq. 581, 584; 12 Jur. N. S. 205, V. C. S. 397, n. 2, add: Platt v. Hall Dare, W. N. (1867) 11, V. C. W.; S. C. nom. Pratt v. Hall Dare, 15 W. R. 304. 398, n. 2, add: Warrick v. Queen's College, Oxford, L. R. 3 Ch. Ap. 815, L.JJ. 399, in line 18 from top, after "a bill": A bill may be ordered to be taken from the file if it is vexatious; as where it was filed after four previous bills for substantially the same matter had been successfully demurred to; Mortlock v. Mortlock, 20 L. T., N. S. 773, V. C. S.; but see Seaton v. Grant, L. R. 2 Ch. Ap. 459, 464, L.JJ; if it is illusory, the plaintiff being indemnified by, and being the puppet of, some other person, who has instituted the suit for the purpose of annoyance and vexation; Robson v. Dodds, L. R. 8 Eq. 301; but see Fisher v. London Offices Company, W. N. (1870) 113, M. R.; and, as we have seen, if it is filed without authority, or without a next friend in the name of a person of unsound mind, or on behalf of a plaintiff who is falsely alleged to be of unsound mind. 400, n. 2, add: 4 De G., F. & J. 449. 401, n. 7, in line 10, after "363": Evans v. Bagshaw, L. R. 8 Eq. 469, M. R.; affirmed, L. R. 5 Ch. Ap. 340, L. C., L.JJ. At end of note 7: Dell v. Griffits, 16 W. R. 30, L. C. 404, n. 9, in last line but one, after "715": And for practice where co-plaintiff refuses to proceed after cause is at issue, see Miller v. Smith, 3 Beav. 598, n. (a). 405, n. 2, add: The addition of a co-plaintiff will not be allowed, on application after answer, when the effect of the addition would be to introduce a new plaintiff with an entirely new case. Peek v. Earl Spencer, W. N. (1870) 90; 18 W. R. 558, L. J. G. 405, n. 3, add: Peek v. Earl Spencer, W. N. (1870) 90; 18 W. R. 558, L. J. G. 405, n. 6, add: Wormsley v. Merritt, L. R. 4 Eq. 695, 696, V. C. M.; Reese River |