Page images
PDF
EPUB

the executors having died, the survivor presented a petition for the re-transfer of the stock :-The court, without requiring the concurrence of the beneficiaries, made an order directing the stock to be transferred to him, and that he should thereout pay the costs of the attorney-general and the commissioners. Ackland, In re, 26 L. T.

418.

When stock has been transferred to the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt by reason of no application for dividends having been made, a re-transfer cannot be obtained, nor can inquiries be directed as to the beneficial title to the stock in the absence of a legal representative of the person in whose name the stock stood at the date of the transfer. Ashmead, In re, 42 L. J., Ch. 314; L. R. 8 Ch. 113 28 L. T. 1; 21 W. R. 65.

When stock in the name of a trustee holding upon trust for a beneficiary has been transferred to the national debt commissioners, the retransfer will be ordered to be made, not to the beneficiary, but to the trustee. Jameson, Ex parte, 44 L. J., Ch. 480; L. R. 19 Eq. 430; 23 W. R. 591.

To a suit by three out of four residuary legatees to recover three-fourths of a sum of stock which the executors had omitted to get in, and which had been transferred to the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt, under the stat. 56 Geo. 3, c. 60, the legatee entitled to the other fourth part of the stock is a necessary party. Hunt v. Peacock,

infra.

A sum of 600l. consols standing in the name of a lady now of unsound mind, and residing abroad, having been transferred to the commissioners in consequence of the dividends having been unclaimed since 1839, the fund ordered, under the 56 Geo. 3, c. 60, to be transferred into the name of the attorney-general in trust in this matter, and the arrears of the dividends ordered to be paid to the "curator "of the lunatic. Sargazurieta, In re, 1 W. R. 171.

Whether Inquiry directed.]—When stock has been transferred to the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt, in consequence of the dividends upon it not having been claimed for ten years, it is not a matter of course to order it to be re-transferred to a person who subsequently makes out a legal title, upon which a transfer of the stock would have been made to him if the ten years had not elapsed. Thus, where stock had stood in the joint names of two persons, of whom one had survived the other upwards of ten years, but had not, during that time, claimed any dividends, the court would not, upon the petition of the widow and personal representative of the survivor, order the stock to be transferred into her name, or into the names of the two deceased persons; but directed the master to inquire who was entitled to the stock, with liberty to state special circumstances. Ram, Ex parte, 3 Myl. & C. 25; 1 Jur. 668.

The court upon petition, under the stat. 56 Geo. 3, c. 60, will direct stock, which has been transferred to the sinking fund, to be re-transferred to the petitioners where their title is clear, without any reference to the master to ascertain who is beneficially entitled to the stock. Nicholl, | Ex parte, Turn. & R. 119.

Where stock which had been standing in the names of two persons had been transferred to

the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt, in consequence of the dividends not having been claimed for ten years, the court, upon the petition of the administrator of the survivor of the two persons to have the stock transferred to him, directed a reference to inquire who was entitled to the stock. Bishton, In re, 27 L. J., Ch. 168; 6 W. R. 289.

In 1806 S. B., in the names of herself, C. H. and H. B., purchased a sum of 41. per cent. annuities (subsequently reduced to 31. per cent.), the dividends of which were received by S. B. till her death in 1821, and by C. H. till his death in 1838. In consequence of no dividends having been received since 1838, the stock had been transferred into the names of the commissioners for reducing the national debt. On a petition presented by H. B., showing that he was the survivor of the three persons, the court ordered the stock to be re-transferred, and the dividends paid to him, but subject to the payment of the costs of the petition. Bouts, Er parte, 28 L. J., Ch. 648; 5 Jur. (N.S.) 951; 7 W. R. 512.

Where unclaimed stock has for some years been standing in the names of the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt, the court will not order a transfer to the personal representative of the party entitled without inquiry as to the parties beneficially interested. Malony, In re, 1 John. & H. 249; 7 Jur. (N.S.) 42; 3 L. T. 465; 9 W. R. 68.

Order made for a transfer of stock under the 56 Geo. 3, c. 60, without a reference. Avery, In re, 1 Russ. & M. 356.

Court will not, under 56 Geo. 3, c. 60, order, on petition, a re-transfer of unclaimed stock that has been transferred to sinking fund when title is disputed. Lavell, Ex parte, 2 Jac. & Walk. 397.

The proper form of proceeding to recover stock and dividends unclaimed for ten years, and carried over to the account of the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt, under the stat. 56 Geo. 3, c. 60, is by petition, to be served upon the attorney-general and the commissioners, and not by bill in the first instance; and if there be conflicting claims to the fund, the court will then give directions for the trial of the rights of the parties between themselves, either by suit or otherwise. Peacock, 6 Hare, 361; 17 L. J., Ch 163; 12 Jur. 154.

Hunt v.

Unclaimed dividends (which had been transferred to commissioners for reduction of national debt) standing in name of A., who had become bankrupt and died, were claimed by A.'s assignees and B., who alleged A. to have held stock as trustee for B. Stock ordered to be transferred to the accountant-general, and reference directed to master to ascertain who entitled to stock. Gillett, Ex parte, Bacon, Ea parte, 3 Madd. 28.

Costs.]-On petition, under the stat. 56 Geo. 3, c. 60, for a retransfer of an unclaimed stock that has been transferred to the sinking fund, the costs are in general to be paid out of the stock in question. Martin, Ex parte, Jac. 55.

The taxed costs of the attorney-general and the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt, upon application under the 56 Geo. 3, c. 60, are, in the absence of special circumstances, to be paid out of the fund recovered. Holland, In re and Ex parte, 1 Ph. 379; 13 L. J., Ch. 167; 8 Jur. 253.

No right to Accumulations.]—When a person | sums of the new 2 per cent. stock. Northestablishes a right to the re-transfer of stock umberland (Duke) v. Percy, 62 L. J., Ch. 331 ; which has been transferred to the commissioners|[1893] 1 Ch. 298; 3 R. 156; 68 L. T. 45; 41 for the reduction of the national debt, he is W. R. 597. only entitled to a re-transfer of the stock and By mortgage, dated in 1867, the mortgagor the payment of the amount of the dividends, but covenanted to transfer to the mortgagee a not to the invested accumulations of such divi-specified amount of new three per cent. stock, dends. Ashmead, In re, supra.

Forged Will-Probate.]—A sum (stock) was standing in the name of a testatrix, which her executors overlooked, and, the dividends remaining unclaimed, the stock was transferred to the national debt commissioners: afterwards one Sanders procured a probate in the name of T. Hunt of a forged will of the testatrix, and obtained a transfer :-Held, that the probate did not authorise a payment to Sanders, and that a party giving faith to the probate was bound to see that the person claiming under it was a real T. Hunt. Under the above circumstances, a transfer from the aggregate fund in the name of the commissioners was ordered to be made to the real executor. Costs out of the fund. Joliffe, Er parte, 8 Beav. 168; 14 L. J., Ch. 134; 10 Jur. 813.

Right to Inspect Lists of Names of Persons Entitled to Unclaimed Dividends.]—A_rule nisi was obtained for a mandamus to the Governor and Company of the Bank of England to produce for the inspection of the applicant a book of the lists of names of the owners of unclaimed dividends. The bank had refused to produce the book. The application was made under ss. 51 & 52 of the National Debt Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 71). On cause being shown :-Held, that the rule must be discharged. The meaning of the section is that only persons who can show some bonâ fide interest are entitled to inspect the lists, and not those who, as was the case here, intend to do so for mere purposes of profit. Reg. v. Bank of England, 60 L. J., Q. B. 497; [1891] 1 Q. B. 785; 64 L. T. 468; 39 W. R. 558; 55 J. P. 695.

2. OTHER POINTS.

Bank of England-Mandamus to Register Transfer in Joint Names.]-Upon an application in an action at the suit of the plaintiffs for a mandamus to compel the Bank of England to register in their books a transfer of stock in the joint names of the trustees -Held, that the plaintiffs, being a corporation and an individual, were tenants in common of the stock in question, and that the bank was entitled to decline to register the transfer, being exonerated, by their ordinary course of practice and the terms of the National Debt Act, 1870, from recognising or registering trusts or tenancies in common, and therefore the mandamus must be refused. Law Guarantee and Trust Society v. Bank of England, 24 Q. B. D. 406; 62 L. T. 496; 38 W. R. 493; 54 J. P. 582.

Conversion of £3 per cent. Consols.]-The plaintiffs, by two deeds executed before the passing of the National Debt (Conversion) Act, 1888, created on their estates a perpetual rentcharge of 10,000l. in favour of the defendant, with a right on their part to redeem the rentcharge, or certain portions thereof, by a transfer of specified sums of 31. per cent. annuities:Held, that, under s. 25, sub.-s. 2 of that act, the plaintiffs could redeem by a transfer of similar

and the lands were conveyed subject to redemption on such transfer. The lands having been sold in court:-Held, on vouching the final schedule of incumbrances, that the mortgage was satisfied by the transfer of a like amount of new stock. Borough's Estate, In re, 31 L. R. Ir. 244.

Bequest of.]-A testator bequeathed 10,000l., part of a sum of 31. per cent. annuities then standing in his name, to trustees on trust to apply the dividends in making certain payments for the benefit of his wife, and after her death to sell the same and distribute the proceeds among certain charities. These annuities having subsequently, by the National Debt (Conversion) Act, 1888, been converted into 27. 15. per cent. new consols, the testator by a codicil, reciting the bequest to his wife and the conversion, bequeathed 15,000l. of the latter stock then standing in his name, and of which his converted annuities formed part, to the trustees on trust to apply the dividends in making the payments by his will directed for the benefit of his wife, and certain other payments during her life, and confirmed his will. At his death the said 15,000l. was still standing in his name :— Held, that the charities took nothing under the codicil, but that it did not revoke the bequest to them by the will; that such bequest not being "specific" but demonstrative, the second part of s. 25, sub-s. 2 of the above act did not apply to it, but that the first part of that subsection did apply, the will being within the description "any instrument" therein occurring; and consequently that there was a valid gift of 10,000l. 27. 158. per cent. new consols in trust for the charities. Shepherd, In re, Churchill v. St. George's Hospital, 64 L. J., Ch. 42; [1894] 3 Ch. 649; 8 R. 735; 71 L. T. 516; 43 W. R 95.

Bequest in Exoneration.]-Bequest of stock to Government, " in exoneration of the national debt," directed to be transferred to such person as the king under his sign manual shall appoint. Newland v. Att.-Gen., 3 Mer. 684.

NATURALISATION.

See INTERNATIONAL LAW.

NAVIGATION.

Of Ships.]-See SHIPPING (COLLISION). On Inland Waters.]-See WATER.

NAVY.

See ARMY AND NAVY.

[blocks in formation]

The writ of ne exeat regno is a high prerogative right, originally applicable to purposes of state; afterwards extended to private transactions; it is confined to cases of equitable debts, and is equivalent to equitable bail. Dick v. Swinton, 1 Ves. & B. 373, Jackson v. Petrie, 10 Ves. 164; 7 R. R. 368; Boehm v. Wood, Turn. & Russ. 343; Whitehouse v. Partridge, 3 Swanst. 377; 19 R. R. 216.

The court of exchequer will grant an order in the nature of a ne exeat regro against an accountant of the crown, sworn to be about to leave the kingdom without having rendered his accounts. Att.-Gen. v. Mucklow, 1 Price, 289;

16 R. R. 724.

On an application for the writ the plaintiff is bound to give the defendant all the information in his power, so as to enable him at once distinctly to meet the case. Anderson v. Stamp, 2 H. & M. 576; 34 L. J., Ch. 230; 11 Jur. (N.S.) 169; 12 L. T. 113.

As to writ of ne exeat in general, see Bernal v. Donegal (Marquis), 11 Ves. 43.

2. IN WHAT CASES.

of reference the writ discharged on giving security. Howden v. Rogers, 1 Ves. & B. 129.

Ne exeat regno granted; the defendant's general residence being in the West Indies, Scotland, and Ireland. Id. 133.

Ne exeat granted since the union to prevent a party going to Scotland. Done's case, 1 P. W., 263; 2 Salk. 702.

Creditor having arrested, and got in part of bankrupt's effects in Scotland, writ ne exeat against him granted. Mackintosh v. Olgivie, Dick. 119. Affirmed, 3 Swanst. 365.

Though England and Scotland be now one kingdom, yet the writ of ne exeat regno has not been altered since the union. It was originally a state writ. Quære, whether in the common form, and security given thereupon, it can restrain the party from going into Scotland. Hunter v. Maceray, Cases t. Talbot, 196.

Foreign Resident Abroad.]-Court will not grant ne exeat regno where the person lives out of the kingdom, and the transaction was on the faith of having justice where he resided. Robertson v. Wilkie, Ambl. 177.

Writ of ne exeat regno obtained by a resident here against a resident in the West Indies upon a demand arising there, when the answer came in, was discharged under the circumstances, with costs against the prochein ami of the infant plaintiff; but upon the admissions in the answer, the defendant was ordered to give security to abide the decree. Roddam v. Hetherington, 5 Ves. 91.

Two Portuguese subjects carried on business in partnership in one business at Lisbon. One of them carried on his own business at the same place, and the other carried on his own business in London. The Portuguese resident was also agent at Lisbon for the other in another business. The partnership was dissolved, and the Portuguese resident came on a visit to England, whereupon the other filed a bill for accounts, and obtained a writ of ne exeat regno against him. Upon a motion to discharge the writ:Held, that the question of debt or no debt must be governed by the law of Portugal alone; and, it not appearing with sufficient clearness that a debt existed, and the plaintiff having omitted to

by the departure of the defendant, the writ was discharged. Vanzeller v. Vanzeller, 15 Jur. 115. A writ of ne exeat regno will not be granted to a plaintiff residing in a foreign country. Smith v. Nethersole, 2 Russ. & M. 450.

In Cases only within s. 6 of Debtors Act.]-state that the debt, if any, would be endangered The writ of ne exeat regno is not to be issued except in cases coming within the provisions of s. 6 of the Debtors Act, and is therefore to be refused unless it be shown that the absence of the defendant will materially prejudice the plaintiff in the prosecution of his action. By the effect of the Judicature Acts there is no substantial difference between an equitable and a legal debt. Per Jessel, M. R. Drover v. Beyer, 49 L. J., Ch. 37; 13 Ch. D. 242; 41 L. T. 393; 28 W. R. 110. The above judgment adhered to by Jessel, M. R., though affirmed by the court of appeal on another ground, as infra, col. 11. Ilands v. Hands, 43 L. T. 750. And see DEBTORS ACT.

Ireland or Scotland.]-Ne exeat to restrain a member of parliament going to Ireland refused. Bernal v. Donegal (Marquis), 11 Ves. 43. Writ of ne exeat regno granted against a person, generally resident in Ireland, and in this country only for a temporary purpose; under the circumstances, that a balance was sworn to, for which bail might have been had; that the plaintiffs had filed a bill in Ireland, where the transactions arose, for an account, and a proposal

Writ of ne exeat regno granted at the suit of an English subject against a native of Russia, generally resident and carrying on business in partnership at St. Petersburg, and, in this country only for a temporary purpose, upon a balance of account in respect of goods consigned to him and his partner. Exemption from arrest for a debt of the same nature by the laws of Russia, is not a sufficient ground for discharging the writ, when one of the parties is an Englishman and was resident in this country. Whether the writ will be granted where the debt has been contracted while the plaintiff and defendant resided in a foreign country, by the laws of which arrest for debt is not permitted, quære. Flack v. Holm, 1 Jac. & Walk. 405; 21 R. R 202.

Debt must be Equitable.]-No ne exeat ever granted where demand is at law. Brocker v.

[blocks in formation]

The plaintiff, a mortgagee of a German ship which had been lost, commenced an action in the chancery division against the owner on the covenant contained in the mortgage deed, and applied for a writ of ne exeat regno, alleging by affidavit that the defendant was about to leave England, and that the debt would be in danger of being lost if he was not prevented from so doing, but not showing that the defendant's advance would prejudice the plaintiff in the prosecution of the action:-Held, that the writ must be refused, for that the claim was a mere legal demand, for which the plaintiff could not before the passing of the Judicature Act have sued in the court of chancery, and that the defendant could only be prevented from leaving England in the case provided for by the Debtors' Act, 1869, s. 6. Drover v. Beyer, 49 L. J., Ch. 37; 13 Ch. D. 242; 41¡L. T. 393; 28 W. R. 110-C. A. The debt for which the writ of ne exeat issues must be equitable, must be due, and must be such debt that the sum to be marked on the writ can be ascertained. Boehm v. Wood, Turn. & R. 340.

[blocks in formation]

Defendant in Suit for Specific Performance.] -In a suit for specific performance by a vendor, a writ of ne exeat regno ought not to issue against the purchaser, unless the court deems it quite clear that there must be a decree for the specific performance of the contract. Morris v. M'Neil, 2 Russ. 604.

Where a covenant in an agreement for a lease was broken, and a verdict obtained for 1,500l., as damages for the breach, but the plaintiff in the action died before the judgment was perfected, so that the damages were lost at law, the court, on a bill by his representatives for specific performance of the agreement, refused a writ of ne exeat regno for the amount. Jenkins v. Parkinson, 2 Myl. & K. 5; Coop. t. Brough. 179; 3 L. J., Ch. 36.

Costs.]-No ne exeat for taxed costs. Goodman v. Sayers, 5 Madd. 471.

Sum Certain.]-The applicant for a writ of ne exeat is bound to show that the person against whom it is sought, is indebted to him in a sum certain and recoverable in equity. Alder v. Ward, 5 Ir. Eq. R. 367.

A writ of ne exeat will not be granted in the case of a contested and unsettled account. Anon., 5 N. R. 358.

For the court to grant a ne exeat regno, there must be the most distinct evidence of a debt due. Mere belief on the part of the plaintiff, that if the accounts were taken, a balance would be found due to him, is not sufficient. Thompson v. Smith, 34 L. J., Ch. 412; 11 Jur. (N.S.) 276; 12 L. T. 9; 13 W. R. 422.

Interest Capable of being Divested.]-A present vested interest, though capable of being divested, is a sufficient interest to support a writ of ne exeat regno. Howkins v. Howkins, infra.

Husband and Wife.]-Ne exeat regno granted against husband and wife executrix, plaintiff undertaking to serve only one writ. Moore v. Hudson, 6 Madd. 218.

administratrix cannot be sustained. Pannell v. A writ of ne exeat regno against a feme covert Tayler, Turn. & R. 96; 1 L. J. (o.s.) Ch. 139. Atk. 409; Dick. 107. But see 6 Madd. 218. Overruling Ternegan v. Glass, Ambl. 62; 3

Granted against administratrix come to England to get in husband's debts. Moore v. Meynell, Dick. 30.

[blocks in formation]

In 1831, a sum of 4,000l. was vested in C. and T. in trust to pay the dividends to F. and M. his wife for life, and after the death of the survivor to pay over the principal sum to the children, in such shares as they should appoint. The trustees were empowered to invest this fund in land, or Government securities in England or Wales; but having sold out the stock, they invested the fund in bills, and obtained appropriate securities in Ireland, and advanced a considerable portion of the principal to the tenants for life. By such default a sum of 1,2007. remained unaccounted for by the trustees in 1836, who were in embardeclared his intention to leave the kingdom; the rassed circumstances, and one of whom, C., tenants for life with the children by their next friend filed a bill for an account against the

trustees.

T. shortly afterwards absconded, and C. having been arrested under a writ of ne exeat the ground that there was marked for 1,2007., applied to be discharged upon no present debt actually "due and payable" to any of the plainthe trusts, none of the cestuis que trustent had a tiffs:-Held, that although from the nature of present right to any part of the principal fund; yet the sum unaccounted for was a debt due in defaulting trustee, and sufficient to sustain the equity demandable from the defendant as a

writ of ne exeat.

274.

Waller v. Fowler, Sau. & Sc.

A trustee was in contempt for not answering, and out of the jurisdiction. He had gone out of the jurisdiction to avoid answering; he had sold out the trust fund to an amount exceeding 20,000l., he had come from Boulogne with a return ticket, and intended to depart shortly, and had in fact been arrested at the station, on the day before the motion for a ne exeat was made, while attempting to depart. The order for a writ of ne exeat was made. Howkins v. Howkins, 1 Drew. & Sm. 75; 6 Jur. (N.S.) 490; 2 L. T. 274; 8 W. R. 428.

Where the writ ne exeat issues against an executor, at the instance of a legatee, it must be marked for the whole amount of what is due, not only to the plaintiff, but to other persons. Pannell v. Tayler, Turn. & R. 100; i L. J. (0.s.) Ch. 139.

Defendant arrested under a writ of ne exeat|clared his intention to leave the kingdom, yet, as regno, for a debt due to an intestate, was dis- the persons most interested were infants, the charged, plaintiff not having obtained adminis- court was bound to attend to their interest upon tration in Ireland. Swift v. Swift, 1 Ball & B. the facts being stated, and therefore granted the 326. writ. Waller v. Fowler, Sau. & Sc. 274.

Ne exeat regno refused against the agent of a surviving executor, having in his possession a bond which was the security for a residue to which plaintiff was entitled. Storey v. Higgins, 3 Bro. C. C. 476.

A residuary legatee cannot have a writ of ne exeat regno against a debtor of the testator, on the ground that he colludes with the executor. Graves v. Griffith, 1 Jac. & Walk. 646.

When a sum of money admitted to be due is ordered to be paid on or before a certain day, a writ ne exeat regno may be issued against the debtor before the day has arrived; the order amounting to an immediate judgment, though payment is deferred. Sobey v. Sobey, 42 L. J., Ch. 271; L. R. 15 Eq. 200; 27 L. T. 808; 21 W. R. 309.

On Bill or Affidavit.]—A solicitor's bill being Debt payable in futuro-Default by Trustee-taxed and overpaid 607., the client, on motion and Debtors Act, 1869.]—An order was made that a affidavit of his being about to go beyond sea, had trustee should within seven days after service a ne exeat regno, though no bill in court whereof the order pay to his cestui que trust, the plain- on to ground this writ. Loyd v. Cardy, Pre. tiff, a sum found due to him by the chief clerk's Ch. 171. certificate. The plaintiff could not find the trustee so as to serve the order, and applied for a writ of ne exeat on the ground that the trustee was about to go out of the jurisdiction :-Held, that the case did not fall within the third exception in s. 4 of the Debtors Act, 1869, the trustee not being in default, as the order only directed payment after service and had not been served, and that as the debt was not now due and payable a writ of ne exeat could not be granted. Colverson v. Bloomfield, 54 L. J., Ch. 817; 29 Ch. D. 341; 52 L. T. 478; 33 W. R. 889-C. A.

3. BOND AND SURETY.

Order on sureties to pay money into court, on forfeiture of recognisance entered into on a ne exeat. Musgrave v. Medex, 1 Mer. 49. S. P. Utten v. Utten, id. 51.

Defendant having given bond, with sureties on writ, and being in custody for contempt; sureties and bond discharged. Debazin v. Debazin, Dick. 95.

Sheriff having taken bail bond on writ ne exeat, defendant, after appearing and putting in two insufficient answers, left the kingdom. Court discharged an order obtained for leave to put the bond in the suit, as the court has nothing to do with prosecuting the bond. Collinridge v. Mount, Dick. 688.

A surety in a ne exeat regno could not be discharged after answer put in by the defendant, not even after decree against the defendant, and commitment for 19,000l. decreed against him, for if (as urged) there is no danger of defendant's going beyond sea (being in prison), then the surety is in no danger. Le Clea v. Trot, Pre. Ch.

230.

4. ISSUE OF Writ.

Time for Application.]-Upon the defendant stating, that if the plaintiffs obtained a decree he would leave the kingdom, the writ of ne exeat regno was issued in an early stage of the cause. Boehm v. Wood, Turn. & R. 342.

What the sheriff does in the case of a writ of ne exeat regno is upon his own responsibility. Id. 340.

The writ of ne exeat regno is a process that ought to be used with great care and caution. The chancellor is only justified in issuing it where a bill has been filed stating the proper facts on which the discretion of the court is to be exercised, and where there is an affidavit verifying the facts of the bill so filed. Hughes v. Ryan, Beat 327.

A writ of ne exeat regno is not to be granted without a bill first filed. Brunker, Ex parte, 3 P. Wms. 312; S. P. Carlisle v. Jones, Wall. Lyn. 125; Anon. 6 Madd. 276.

A ne exeat will not be granted unless it is prayed for by the bill. Sharp v. Taplor, 11 Sim.

50.

It is not necessary upon an application for a writ of ne exeat regno, that the writ should be prayed for by the bill. Howkins v. Howkins, 8 W. R. 403.

A writ of ne exeat granted, though not prayed for by the bill. Barned v. Laing, 13 Sim. 255; 12 L. J. Ch. 377; 6 Jur. 1050; 7 id. 383.

Writ of ne exeat regno granted upon motion made without notice after the appearance of the defendant, and though not prayed by bill. Elliot v. Sinclair, Jac. 545; Collinson r. 18 Ves. 353, 355; 11 R. R. 212; Moore v. Hudson, 6 Madd. 218.

Evidence in Support, by Affidavit.]-The court acts on evidence of intention to go abroad, without regard to denial. Whitehouse v. Partridge, 3 Swanst. 375; 19 R. R. 216.

The affidavit to ground a writ of ne exeat regno must not only state that the defendant is equitably indebted in a specific sum, but must mention the facts on which it arises, &c. Anon. 2 Ves. 489.

The affidavit for ne exeat regno must state positively that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in a sum certain, except it be a bill for an account, and then belief as to the amount of the balance is sufficient. Rico v. Gaultier, 3 Atk. 501.

Affidavit to support a writ of ne exeat regno must be positive. Roddam v. Hetherington, 5 Ves. 91.

The writ of ne exeat regno issued properly, the Writ of ne exeat discharged with costs, it hav-subject being matter of account. A general ing issued against a captain of ship on point of sailing, who had been in England a considerable time. Dick v. Swinton, 1 Ves. & B. 371.

Where the writ of ne exeat was not applied for until after the lapse of six months from the time when a defendant (a defaulting trustee) had de

affidavit of belief of the defendant's intention to quit the kingdom is sufficient, without the circumstances upon which that belief is founded. Russell v. Ashby, 5 Ves. 96.

Writ of ne exeat regno refused, the affidavit amounting to no more than suspicion of the

« PreviousContinue »