The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-03-01 00:00:00

Li INTELLIGENCE;

. . . •, - -
VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT! FM,: 25.
(13eftre Vice7Chancellor lindersley.)
*ism.; v. BEIDdES AND SON.
fife &4f 1:1V8
.sieitecT Considerable interest, as the
defendants are soneitdiff; %Oho ,oeMy
ta j)rominpt
position in what is called the religious *eild; and the
idaintiff is well knewn as having represented Ipsi,trth
beton nu' after the Reform 13111 of D 332, and is well
known in Liforpool. The other defendants are Mr.
Masotti solicitor, in Bedford-row, and the Westminster
Iniproi,pment Commissioners, but these are merely
nornitidl Pattiqgj tll6 sglo snestion being,—" Whether it
is just that Messrs; Dodged did Doll siaould persist in
retaining against the plartiff rritffigagg obtained under
the ni4cumstances .pro;ve
us eriaence."
one, of theanateruil fact§,nf,the casq,a,re:disp4ted on
either side, resting in truth upon written testimonz.
November, 1853, the deatiliggidiefg airik tressekbx
the plaintiff to fulfil an agreement made betNitell them
as long back as 1847, agreed to made with him a joint
proposal to the Rock Life Office to borrow £20,000
upon security of property on the south side of Victoria-
' street, plaintiff giving other property as collateral security,.
and the joint proposal expressly stated that its object was
to enable the commissioners to fulfil their agreement of
1847 with the plaintiff. The proposal was accepted,
and 3.lessrs. Bridges, Mason, and Bridge's, who were the
solicitors fsr the Westminster Iniprovement Commission,
detect di the gOieitors felt the joint borrowers, and there-
fore standing, as plaintiff etnntends, in a fiduciary position
to him to• See tile transaction faitlifillly tarried out.
The necessary deeds were prepared dilti eiailt63
p:l4iritiff 4iid the, commissioners iri ,filly; 1884; btit,
before 'completion, it lids iietiegsaty fdr the Commis-
tsitisjo beycirid the h 0,000; and this
Maso:n declared plaintiff and the solicitor fdt the
Rock, would ha ready in a day or tiVo. it cheque itifi
therefore signed by the directors for £20,000 to be ready
at a moment's notice, Witliont waiting for a board day,
and plaintiff left London. The Comaiissioners' books
prove . that Mr. Mason in July, reported to the
•Commissioners thdt . nearly £5,000 would be
necessary to complete the transaction with the
pock, and he was ordered to obtain a loan
front their bankers, On deposit of two or more of
Banks's leases • and ho was afterwards ordered to
obtain a loan Of £15,000 on deposit of five of Banks's
leases. On. the 2nd, of August he reported that the
bankers had paid £7,000 to their credit, and he received
from the commissioners cheques for £l,Bio, £7OO, and
£3,000, the two former being the specific sums due to
the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, for property
included in the deeds which had been executed, and the
greater part of the £3,000 being necessary to complete
the transaction.
Mr. Mason kept all these cheques in his pocket for
above a week, the presented and obtained payment for
the two first £2,600, kept the money for ten days longer, ,
and then, as he says, paid it back to the comniisioners,
dt their request. Howefer thig may be, repeated appli-
cations were Made by the Rock to Messrs. Bridges,
Mason, and Bridges to complete the transaction, and
repeated promises to do so by Mason, who, in September,
asked that the £20,000 might be deposited at a banker's,
dnd which reqUest was complied with ; the transaction
was never completed, and in the following December the
commissioners were prevailed upon to execute another
mortgage of the very same property-to Messrs. Bridges,
Mason, and Bridges, and this mortgage they effectually
concealed from the Rock and from plaintiff for nearly
twelve months, when it was discovered by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff returned to London its 'ebruary, 1855,
and upon his calling at the solicitors of the Rock on
other business, to his astonishment heard that the
mortgage to the Rock had never been completed, and
immediately went to Messrs. Bridges, Mason, and
Bridges to know the reason, when Mason told him
that the Commissioners were unable to raise the
£5,000, that a judgment bad been obtained against
them, and which, until it was satisfied, rendered it
impossible for the transaction with the Rock to go
on,---that application would be made to Parliament
for a bill which would supply the Commissioners
with plenty of capital to purchase the freehold ;
and in the meantime the £20,000 had better remain
at the banker's. Mr. Mason had previously called
on the solicitors of the Rock, and made a similar
statement.
Plaintiff, fully believing such representations, agreed
to wait. The bill passed, but proved abortive ; several
other negotiations took place, wihch failed, and in
December plaintiff tiled a bill against the Commis-
sioners for a specific performance of the agreement of
1847. After that bill had been prepared, and directly
after it was filed, plaintiff discovered that the commis-
sioners had executed a mortgage for £20,000 to the firm
of Bridges, Mason, and Bridges of the identical pro-
perty, which had been agreed to be mortgaged to the
Rock for his benefit, and of which Bridges, Mason, and
Bridges had prepared the deeds which had been executed;
he was very indignant and threatened to amend the bill
which had been filed against the Commissioners, make
Bridges, Mason, and Bridges parties, and. pray that the
mortgage to the firm might be delayed fraudulent and
void to the extent sufficient to indemnify him against
any loss he might sustain in consequence of the trans-
action with the Reek not having been completed.
Mr. Mason denied the charge of fraud, declared that
the mortgage had only been taken by his firm to
prevent the property being affected by other judgments,
fully admitted that it ought not to stand in the way of
the plaintiff, and said that he might have a sufficient
portion of the property to indemnify him for any loss he
might sustain in consequence of the mortgage to 'the
Rock not being completed. Plaintiff and Mason then
sat down to calculate the probable loss in presence of
Mr. Waller, and it was fixed at £B,OOO, and Mason
made in his own handwriting, a proposal that plaihtiff
was to have 'l4O feet of frontage westward of Brewers'
Green, being a .portion of the property included
in the mortgage to Bridges, Mason, and Bridges,
and which proposal plaintiff's solicitor accepted in writ-
ing. Drafts of the agreements were prepared, approved
of Bridges, Mason, and Bridges, on behalf of the
commissioners, and signed Bridges, Mason, and Bridges.
Mason afterwards requested plaintiff, as a personal favour
to himself, and that it might not he necessary to enter
into explanation with the commissioners,' who were new
men why the £B,OOO was given up, that such agreement
should be divided into two—one between plaintiff and
the commissioners—not alluding to the £B,OOO —the
other between plaintiff and Bridges, Mason, and
Bridges, relating to the £B,OOO. Plaintiff complied with
the request.
As soon as he had consented, Bridges, Mason, and
Bridges voluotarily resigned the solicitorship to the
Commissioners, who appointed, on Mr. Mason's nomi-
nation, Mr. George Mayhew, who had many times
done the work of the solicitors to the Commissioners,
as their agent, and who had for many years been in
the office of Bridges, Mason, and Bridges, first as
articled, and then as salaried clerk. That part of the
agreement between plaintiff and the Commissioners was
executed on the 6th of June, 1856. The other part,
between plaintiff and Bridges, Mason, and Bridges,
plaintiff had been unable to obtain. After repeated
applications, plaintiff filed the present bill against
Bridges, Mason, and Bridges, falling back upon his
original rights previous to the agreement of 1856. The
Commissioners were formal, but necessary parties to
the bill.

All these facts are admitted, but defendants contend
that plaintiff is not entitled to the relief be asks, on
three grounds :—First, that the Commissioners had not,
and could not, procure funds in July and August, 1854,
to complete the mortgage to the Rock. Second, that
Lord Lifford on the 3rd October, obtained a 'judgment
against them, which prevented the transaction going on.
Third, that plaintiff executed the above-mentioned
agreement with the Commissioners in June, 1846, by
which he agreed to abandon the bill against them—
that is, the bill filed in 1855. .
To this the plaintiff replied—First, that the commis-
sioners had, in July and August, abundant property from
which they could have obtained sufficient funds—that
they did obtain such.funds, and gave Mason cheques for
thenecessary amount, but which Mason did not apply,
having resolved to obtain a mortgage of the same
property for this firm. Second, that the judgment of
Lord Lifford was collusively obtained for the stitne pun--
pose. Third, that the agreement of June, 1856, was a
-fitting postscript to the mortgage transactions, it having
been agreed to and signed by the plaintiff under gross
misrepresentations, 'by- Mason, when acting as solicitor
to the Commissioners, and by Mayhew on the face of the
agreement 'itself.
To prove the first of these replies, the plaintiff refers
to the Commissioners' books, to the fact that the mort-
gage to Bridges, Mason; and Bridges, included hot only
the property agreed to be mortgaged for plaintiff's
benefit, but considerably more, and to a schedule to the
answer sworn to by Mason himself in another cause,
" Beaumont v. Mason."
To prove the second of these replies, plaintiff says
that the said George Mayhew was appointed by Bridges;
Mason, and Bridges, to defehd the action brought by
Lord Lifford,- add 'that he suffered judgmeni to be
signed by consent. That Lord Lifford had brought
'the action as trustee for sonic of the Pear-
sons. That some of the Pearsons had been,
and some 'were Commissioners when the two wort •
gages were signed. That one of them married Lord
Lifford's sister. That the bond upon which the action
was raised, bore upon the face of it that it was no rank
pnei passe with other bondholders, and therefore Lord
Lifford and Mr. Mayhew knew no benefit could be
obtained from the judgment except pori passe with other
bondholders : and, beyond this, that all these parties
well knew that such judgment could not possibly take
priority of the P 20,000 proposed to be borrowed from
the Rock, because such bonds were given under the
powers of a deed of settlement (referred to in, and
confirmed by the act 1853, and which act was in
evidence) subject to a prior power to borrow £150,000,
of which the £20,000 was a part.
To prove the third point plaintiff refers to the fact
of Mr. Mayhew's appointment as solicitor to the
Commissioners at the critical period of the prepara-
tion of the agreement of 1856,—that he had committed
a gross suppressio yen by permitting a recital to
remain in . the agreement which he knew might
have the effect, and which really had the effect, of
rendering the agreement perfectly inoperative on the
only point which he knew induced the plaintiff
to execute it,—that another recital bears two mean-
ings, one of which would be in conformity with
what Mason had told plaintiff and his solicitor—
namely, that the reason why the mortgage to the
Commissioners was not completed in August, 1854, was
that the commissioners had no funds, when in fact they
had an abundance of funds—that the agreement was
signed by thejlaintiff under the misrepresentation of
Mason, that the agreement respecting £B,OOO should
be executed simultaneously with that of June, 1856,
and which never has been done—that such misrepre-
sentation having been made when Bridges, Mason,
and Bridges, were acting as solicitors to the commis-
sioners; it is, therefore, notice to them that the agree-
ment of June, 1856, was really, pmy part of an agree-
ment, the, other part of which plaintiff could not get.
That if
Courtedsho(euelduttrhaivy to the y
nk.,,
‘ises of every
honest notwithstandingethetyse
thite is
bound objections,
honest man) to give effect to such argrcement, the plaintiff
falls hack upon the ninth paragraph, which expressly
reserves all his rights under the agreement. of 1857 and
to but subject to the lien of the
vendors,
callmortgage,plaintiffwiieh
asks they may be decreed to
give • that lie has abandoned his bill in Chancery
according to the letter of the agreement, and instituted
the present suit against other parties, making other
statements, and praying in the most important part for
different objects ; that Bridges, Mason, and Bridges are
no parties to the agreement or 1856, and have, by their
conduct, precluded themselves from becoming such, and
therefore plaintiff is entitled to the relief he asks against
thein.