Piggott v Canning: 1660

The defendant pleads a decree, and that the plaintiff was purchaser pendente lite, and the defendant was ordered to answer, saving the benefit of his plea. Note : The bill was there exhibited, to be relieved against the said decree, (1) Piggot being a purchaser without notice of Canning’s suit or trust, and said the decree was gotten by fraud.

Citations:

[1660] EngR 199, (1660-1706) 2 Freem Chy 149, (1660) 22 ER 1121 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Torts – Other

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.410189