In Newman v. Hodgson, supra, it was intimated by the Lord Chancellor that a bill ought to be brought into Parliament on this subject. The Accountant-General was directed to pay a legacy to the surviving executors of the legatee, without requiring the concurrence of the executor of a deceased executor. Moodie v. Bainbridge, 6 Mad. 107. An order may be obtained for payment to the attorney of the party. Hill v. Chapman, 11 Ves. 239. But not to his solicitor. See Direction for Payment of Costs, post. But whether such an order is necessary, qu. as the money may be received under a power of attorney from the party entitled, without an order. Payment of a legacy has been ordered to a person having a general power of attorney only from the legatee. Carr v. Estabrook, 2 Cox, 390. Yerbury v. Head, there cited. For the mode in which powers of attorney executed abroad for the receipt of money in Court are required to be verified. See Hutcheon v. Mannington, 6 Ves. 823. Lord Kinnaird v. Lady Saltoun, 1 Mad. 227. Garvey v. Hibbert, 1 J. & W. 180. No. XIV. DIRECTION FOR SALE OF STOCK. It is ordered that the sum of £ Bank 3 per cent. an nuities, standing in the name of the Accountant-General of this Court in trust in this cause, be sold with the privity of the said Accountant-General, and one of the cashiers of the Bank is to have notice to attend and receive the money to arise by such sale, who upon receipt thereof is to pay the same into the Bank, with the privity of the said Accountant-General, to be there placed to the credit of this cause. For order for sale of stock and payment of cash out of court. See Equity Draftsman, 617. For Accountant-General's certificate of having sold stock. See Hand's Pract. 282. NOTE. For mode of sale or transfer of stock by Accountant-General, or delivery out of specific articles. See 1 Newl. Pract. 19. For mode of paying off or exchanging Exchequer bills. See 1 Newl. Pract. 21. No. XV. FURTHER DIRECTIONS. And his Lordship doth reserve the consideration of all further directions, until after the said Master shall have made his report. NOTE. In interlocutory decrees further directions are usually reserved. See Interlocutory Decrees, ante. And this reservation will be continued from time to time, if necessary. Lowthian v. Hasell, M. R. 19th March, 1787. Reg. Lib. B. 1786. fol. 349. S. C. L. C. 23d July, 1789. Reg. Lib. B. 1788. fol. 582. After this reservation the Court will not interfere upon the matter reserved in a summary way; but the cause must be set down for hearing. Cooke v. Gwyn, 3 Atk. 689. And see Lord Shipbrook v. Lord Hinchinbrook, 13 Ves. 394. For orders for setting down the cause for further directions, &c. See Hand's Pract. 173. &c. But an order in the nature of further directions may be made upon motion by consent. Anon. 11 Ves. 169. And after a decretal order for reference of title made upon motion, further directions may be obtained on motion also. Brooke v. Clarke, I Swan. 551. And see Walters v. Pyman, 19 Ves. 351. Shore v. Collett, Coop. 238. Whitcomb v. Foley, 6 Mad. 3. So after a decretal order made on motion for an account of incumbrances, and to ascertain priorities, an order for further directions and costs has been made on petition. White v. Bishop of Peterborough, M. R. 20th December, 1821. MS. Where an issue and a reference were directed by the decree, and further directions were reserved till after the trial and report, and in consequence of the verdict the reference became unnecessary, a petition for leave to set down the cause for further directions, or such other order as the Court should think fit, was dismissed. Dixon v. Olmius, 1 Ves. jun. 153. The proper course would have been to rectify the decree. Where the decree directs a reference to the Master generally, with liberty to the Master to make a separate report, as to any special matter, further directions should be reserved till after the general report. Van Kamp v. Bell, 3 Mad. 430. Any order upon the separate report must be made on petition S. C. But that a direction for a separate report is not now necessary. See No. V. ante. A cause need not be set down for further directions, or upon the equity reserved before the same judge who heard it originally. See Pemberton v. Pemberton, 11 Ves. 53. But as to the inconvenience of the practice. See S. C. The following proposition upon this subject is among those subjoined to the Chancery Report. Proposition 120. That all causes originally heard by the Master of the Rolls or the Vice-Chancellor shall be heard, on further directions by the same judge, unless the party entitled to set down such cause for hearing on further directions shall think fit to have such cause heard by the Lord Chancellor. Upon further directions the Court may add to the decree. Creuze v. Hunter, 2 Ves. jun. 164. And see Dormer v. Fortescue. 2 Atk, 284. Lord Shipbrooke v. Lord Hinchinbrook, 13 Ves. 394. And see Reservation of Interest, post. But the decree cannot be altered. Taylor v. Popham, 15 Ves. 76. And see Walker v. Symonds, 3 Swan. 60, and mode of rectifying Decrees, post. Except in the case of a charity. Attorney General v. Whiteley, 11 Ves. 241. Sometimes, however, an error in the original decree is got rid of on further directions, by allowing a short petition of rehearing to be presented. Bailey v. Ekins, 7 Ves. 324. So upon exceptions to the report, no order can be made which is inconsistent with the original decree. Brown v. De Tastet, Jac. 293. East India Company v. Keighley, 4 Mad. 16. Formerly original decrees, in many cases, contained such full directions as almost to render any application to the Court for further directions unnecessary; but this is not the case in modern decrees. See the evidence of the Lord Chief Baron, Chancery Report, Appendix A. P. 346. And see Decrees for Account, post. Decrees respecting Real Assets, post. Decrees for Partition, &c. post. Decrees respecting Sureties, post. For further matters relating to further Directions. See Decrees under each particular head. No. XVI. RESERVATION OF INTEREST. And the Court doth reserve the consideration of &c. and of interest, until after the said Master shall have made his report. NOTE. In Macarte v. Gibson, 14 Vin. 458. pl. 13. Lord King at first thought that interest might be given by the Master under the head of just allowances; but upon being informed by the Master that he never allowed interest, unless a particular order was made for that purpose, he reserved the consideration of interest and costs till after the Master's report. In Ryves v. Coleman, 2 Atk. 440. it was said by Lord Hardwicke, that, generally, no interest could be allowed, where it was not ordered or reserved by the decree; but that notwithstanding there was no particular reservation of interest by a decree, yet that there was a discretionary power in the Court to allow interest upon special circumstances. And in Champ v. Mood, 2 Ves. 474. he observed, that the reservation of further directions in general had not been taken to reserve interest, and that interest ought to be expressly directed by the decree to be reserved; but he admitted that there might be a case, where, it having been pointed out in the cause, the Court would take interest to be reserved on such general directions; that after a direction of a trial at law, reservation of general directions would be taken to include costs, interest, and every thing; but in the common case of a reference to a Master it was taken to be otherwise. And in Hearle v. Greenbank, 1 Dick. 370. interest not having been reserved by the decree, Lord Northington said he could not order it on further directions; but recommended the plaintiff to rehear the cause, merely to introduce a reservation of interest. In a previous case, however, Goodyere v. Lake, Ambl. 584. S. C. 1 West, 490. Lord Hardwicke had, according to the report in Ambler, held it to be clear that, under the gene ral reservation of further directions, the Court might give interest, though not reserved by the decree, and referred to the case of the Hudson's Bay Company v. Sir Stephen Evans, in which it was done. And in Sammes v. Rickman, 2 Ves. jun. 36. And Margerum v. Sandiford, there cited, it was so held accordingly. And in Creuze v. Hunter, 4 Bro. 318. S. C. 2 Ves. jun. 164. Lord Roslyn said, he had thought that if interest was not given by the decree, or reserved, it was matter of rehearing; and that, in strictness, this was the rule; but that if the point was made upon the hearing for further directions, he saw no objection to its being then given if the case would warrant it; and he expressed himself satisfied with the authority of Margerum v. Sandiford, that it might be so. But though interest may be given on further directions, though not reserved by the decree, it will not be given on petition. Creuze v. Hunter, supra. And see Decrees respecting Executors and Trustees, post. That interest will be given, though not prayed by the bill. See Bruere v. Pemberton, 12 Ves. 389. Turner v. Turner, 1 J. & W. Pearse v. Green, 1 J. & W. 135. Good v. Blewitt, there 43. cited. No. XVII. RESERVATION OF COSTS. And his Lordship doth reserve the consideration of, &c. and of the costs of this suit, until after the said Master shall have made his report. NOTE. Formerly a direction was inserted in decrees, with a view to charge the defendant with costs, in case he should give unnecessary trouble in carrying the decree into execution. See Scarborough v. Burton, 2 Atk. 111. Benson v. Dean and Chapter of York, Belt's Supplement, 67. Pearson v. Robinson, L. C., 28th of June, 1748. Reg. Lib. B. 1747, fol. 506. But Lord Hardwicke did not approve of clauses of this kind, and intimated that the question of costs should either be determined or reserved. S. C. Barn. Ch. Ca. 255. In that case, however, such a direction having been inserted in the decree (which was by the Master of the Rolls), he made an order accordingly. S. C. And see Beames on Costs, 172. |