|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEALE v. HAGTHROP. 699
case, as related to the one-half of the lot so claimed by him should
be stricken out, &c.
29th November, 1831. —BLAND, Chancellor. —Ordered, that the
matter of the foregoing petition stand over until the case shall have
been revived and brought before the court for a final hearing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After which the plaintiff, by his petition, stated, that the contro-
versy in relation to the ten acre lot was then ready for final hearing,
and the parties interested all before the court; that the controversy
in relation to the lot on Alice-Anna street was not then ready for
final hearing, inasmuch as one of the parties in interest was not
before the court. And as the controversy in relation to the ten
acre lot may be finally determined without injury or inconvenience,
leaving the property on Alice-Anna street for future adjudication.
And as the matters now remaining in dispute, and the difficulties
in the way of a final decision, in relation to the Alice-Anna street
property, present no obstacles to a final decision in relation to the
ten acre lot; and inasmuch as the parties are in needy circum-
stances; and also as the property cannot be improved until the
right to it is finally settled; the petitioner prayed, that the court
would proceed to a final decision upon the questions in regard to
the ten acre lot, retaining for future adjudication so much of the
controversy as relates to the property on Alice-Anna street.
17th February, 1832. —BLAND, Chancellor. —Where there are a
plurality of defendants, and one of them dies, who had an interest
which does not devolve upon the surviving parties, but which
might, in all respects, have been separated by that final decree
which the court would have passed; and which interest of the de-
ceased is of such a nature as not necessarily to involve an expres-
sion of the judgment of the court upon that which does obviously
constitute a component part of the title relied upon by the surviv-
ing defendants, it may, in some instances, be expedient and pro-
per to pass a decree upon the matter in controversy as to the sur-
viving defendants, and to leave the separate interest of the deceased
open to be afterwards brought before the court at a more convenient
season, or when required by his representatives. (I)
But here all the original defendants alike derive title under or in
opposition to one and the same deed; upon the true construction
(t) Bressenden v. Decreets, 2 Ca. Cha. 107; East India Company v. Coles, 3
Swan. 142; Ferrers v. Cherry, 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 4; Lingan v. Henderson, 1 Bland,
236,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
