The Express.
London, England, 1852-07-26 00:00:00

iLaW intelltacnce.

EQUITY COURTI3.—SATraDAI.
Int LOGI, CIIANc LUIS.

31•••11.-.11AW r irk.VWNTCR(i.

♦NU

T)Titta4. Tau

fOlt,• s.—ALCUUNTS.—iII.,,SIENT,

This was an •••le,l from the judgment of lord Cram-
worth. Vice Chant,. lior, against the plaintiff, in a suit for
warsents. The que,tionrmsed, ethicists of some importance
to die mercantile community, was this—whether, in the cir.
esmitanees stated, under the Factor' Acts, 1 Geo. IV., e. 83,
60e.. IV., c. 64, and 3 & 6 Vic., e. 39, the agent of a
tareign shipper of goods could ph ,:g. them with • met-
&ant.

The plaintiff, the shipper of the goods in question, Jakob-
bey Navalshaw, an Indian merchant, on the 15th art March.
1047, wrote to his agents, Messrs. Brownrigg and Co, of
Liverpool, wr.sina them of the shirts, nt, fill' sale and
Maros on his sit...out," of a quant,ty of pearls by the
overland mail, aral he stated that he had drawn on tls, in
thr6Sl. the amount of the policy of a-surance, and would
by • sulnequent mail draw on them for the value of the
seeds Mrownrigg and Co. thereupon wrote to the London
emantimion house of Cattr, Cora t, wail Co., informing them
that they " tipeeted to rimier from Intim a pant I of plaits
fee sale, • and snaking it.quiry as to the market price. The
pFarls arrived hy the steamer Aucklau I in the catty part of
lig. On the fill of May, Cater and Co., at the request
et Bros iiripg aad Co , accepted bills fur 2,0001 for the par.
posse of the latter. Oct the 10th of April the platatitf, by
letter from India, informed his agents,. ltrownrigg and Co.,
that he had drawn hill. en them fur 2,400:. in nisi. et Of the
pearls. Th, sir bii;t wet, amine,' by lirownrigg and Co.
at a date helot.' Ca, r anti CO. had actual:y accepted the
2,0001. hill., las! not b, tree they agreed to do so, but of the
feet of acceptance they had no notice. Bowe time in
J 517 Cater and Csi. received from ltrownrigg and Co. an
iavoice of the pearls, signed by the plaintiff. the heading of
whirl* was in thew word., Invoice of a parcel contair.ing
two boars of pearl. cousigaed to Menges. Broonrigg and Co.
for rale and returns on my account and risk." 'f he pearls
were handed 0 VT to Cater and Co., who put them up for
pablic sale, hut • small parcel only was sold, producing
WU. and the et sidue we. hsught tn. TM 2,000/. bills se.
otiptc4 by Cater and Co. fell doe ea the thith of August, and
there was a there month, renewal of the metplauces (less
the 3211. which was to go towards the for LOW.
When they became doe to November they were again m-
asted. In that moth Drawer's awl Co. became 'wet-
test, and when the bill. arrived at maturity in January,
16411, Cater and Co. took them sp.
la March, ISIS. the p•asintiff, through another agent, de-
manded from Brownrigg and Co. the return of tor purls.
whe replied that they had Wen pleditt d to titer and l'o.
Three day. afterward., namely, on the S:11 of Mart-h. Cater
and Co sold tl.r pearl. by pnsate sale for 1,300/. On the
Iflth of March the plainttra agents applied to Cater end
Co. for the pars, and were informed ley them that, having
accepted and peal hill. on account of the marls, the pre-
meds were credited accordingly. We do rest know the
skipper, and never have been in communication with him."
The plant. iff thereupon fled his bill against Cater and Co..
sad also against Browurigg and Co.. cbargiug trawl and
praying fur en account. The ViewChancelsor held that
brownrigir lal.l Cu. could pledge them ander the Factors'
Leta, and that no tat was nia.le out for an account against
Cater and Co , and the bill was dismissed. Froin that de-
tails the plaintiff &omelet'.
Mr. Bethel' and Mr. Lewis, far the appeCaut, submitted
that Brownsigg aid Ca. had no authority to pledge, but
only to Cater and Co. must have known that the
pearls were on sent tor oak ; that Browarorg and Co. had
we
right to pledge them ; aad the statute 5 ts 6 Vic , c. 39,
ass. 3, oaly protected is contract made bona Ode.
Mr. Bolt and Mr. Goldiunid, for Cater and Co., relied on
the set 6it 6 Viet. Them was no pri.ity between the
*intik and Cater and Co., and the remedy, if any, was
at Tew._ . _ _

—lir.Lewis, in the absence of his learned leader, replied.
The Lord Chancellor, in giving judgment, re viewed the
• • of the variou. acts bearing on the epit-dlion. The
flsnt maim of S & G 'Vie ,c. 39, provides that any agent
eatrouted with the pe.lll4ssion of goods, or of documents, or
title thereto, shall le Ile emed to he the owner of such
goad', re far as to give validity to any contract or agree-
ment by way of pledge, loan, or security, bona tide made by
may person with seek agent so entrusted. as well for any
original loan, advauce, or payment made upon the security
of the goods or documents, as also for any further or con-
tinuing advance in respect thereof; and such contract or
agrocinett shall be binding upon and good against the
owner notssithstasiding the person claiming such pledge
or lien may have had notice that the person who
OWL* the contract so made is only an agent.••
That section exactly met the present case. The
third section simply provides that the benefit of the act
&add ratend to snob contracts and agreements only, and
Cuweta only such loans advances, and ezehauges as should
ntatte bona fide, said without no:ice that the agent
making the contract or agreement has not authority to
make the same, or is acting mold fide is respect thereof
asainst the owner , and it is provided that the bent fit shall
ant extend in respect of any antecedent debt owing (rem
tbe agent to the person t whom the pledge is given, or
where the ag has deviated from en express order or
aratheiity rec. toed from the owner. There was nothing in
this case to show that Brownrigg and Co. had not autho-
rity to pledge, for the general authority which they had to
well mast be construed to include authority to pledge the
goods; and there was no evidence of mala tides to bring the
air within the limitation of the 3rd section of the set.
There was no notice to Cater and Co. so Si to lead them to
suppose that Brownrigg and Co. had no authority to
pledge, and the latter having accepted the bills for the
gdaintalf had a right to pledge. Great danger and eon.
would mist in mercantile transactions, if a court of
equity were to make any other construction of the statutes.
Ina (the Lord Chancellor's) opinion the judgment of the
roamed Vise-Chancellor was correct, and ought to be
allisoted.

The appeal was therefcre diagaisaed, and with costs.

DYa• 0. RIINDALL.
T►n is an appeal from • decree of Vice-Chancellor
Light Bruce in • suit for dower. The circumstances are
peculiar, but as t►e Lord Chancellor took time to look into
IMMO authorities cited, we defer our report till judgment is
Imo
His lordship rose early to attend the Cabinet Council.

Bareat VIC4CIWKR4LOS TVIWILI.
MOZOAN V. MIL AN.

The bill was filed in this ease by Sir Charles Morgan, for
the specific performance of a contract, for the purchaae of
amain lands, by the South Wales Railway Company. The
had in question was subject to a settlement, under which
the late Sir Charles Morgan and the plaintiff were tenants
far life, with a joint power of appointment to any person in
he. The contract had been entered into during the life-
lines of the late baronet, and a certain sum had been paid
• account; the intention being that the tenants for life
should itemise their power of appointment in favour of the
essespeny. But the late Sir Charles having died before the
natter was completed, the question was whether the con
tract was ►uch as the court would aid in carrying cut, in
which case the plaintiff would become entitled to the pro-
duce of the sale absolutely.
Sir W. Wood and Mr. Reit appeared for the plaintiff;
■r. Osborne for the railway company.
Mr. Ohre and Mr. Mdman resisted the hill on behalf of
the trustees of the settlement of the estates in question, mid
mintended that there was no contract which could be
inbreed.
His Himont reserved his judgment.

EIPDISPLET,

COVINTILY O. 11001.CU7T0111f-ir •rainasT.
This was a petition wrested in the above cause by the
neat friend of Lady Maria Coventry, an infant now IG
yean of age, and the question raised was under whose (are
sad protection Lady Maria Coventry should he placed
daring her minority—whether she should reside in the
raily of Sir Charles and Lady Rushout, or whether she
should be placed with Major-General Lygon and his sister,
Lady Lora Lygoo. This young lady was the daughter I
of Lady Walter, who died in 11.42. The will of Harriet
Anse N'iseountese Deerhunt, dated in April, DM, cou-
rsed the fallowing passages " In the first place I ne-
arly entreat that my brother, Sir Chas. Coekerell, Bart.,
and Major-General Lygoa shall be the guardians of my son,
(leor,te Wm. Coventry, Viscount Detrhurst, during his
minority, end in the er of the decease of either of
them it is my wish and desire that Lord Rodesdale
should take the place of either of them so departing
tkis life. And I also further earnestly entreat that my
Mothi r, Ilarriet Lady Cockerel', the Lady Louisa Lygon,
sod the said General Edward Lygon, and the survivors and
wanieur of them shall be the gridians of my daughter
Maria Emma Catherine Coventry, during her minority,
sad I particularly request my said daughter shall be per-
grad to reside with the said Harriet Lady Cockerel
darins tier minority, or so long a time thereof as the said
Darnel Lady Cockerel' may happin to live. le stating
Meal my earnest requests, I sincerely trust they may be
strictly fulfilled." After the death of the testatrix, her in-
fest daughter was placed under the care of Lady Cockerel',
with whom ohs re•ided until her death, which took place
is October last. It appears that Sir (hark, ltushout,
adieu original name was Cantrell, was the sun of Lidy
enchain, and during the latter portion of his mothers
hie he hail taken up his residence with her.
Urn her death he considered that he was the most
person to have the custody and management
peepere ionot Lady Maria Coventry. This, hotter, r, was ob-
jected to by Ilajor•General Lygon and his sister, on the
groui.d that they were appointed in her mother's will joint
'earthen, of the infant with Lady Cockerel!. and her
mother had earnestly entreated by her will that Lady
Ogren 11, General Lygoo, and Lady Lear Lytton, or the
survivors or survivor of them, should act as guardians. In
sessequenee of this dispute a reference was directed to the
Master, to report as to who would be fit and proper persons
te be the guardians of the infant. The *Miff (Sir George
Mesa) reported that it would be desirable that Sir rtes
r 4 Lad, Kuban and Unser Lygon and Lady Louisa
Lygoa, should all four act as the guardians of the young
try, but that she ought to reside with Sir Charles and Lioly
Mahout. This decision the Muter And come to after
baying an interview with the infant herself.
Mr. Stuart and Mr. Watford now appeared in opposi-
res to the Master's report, and snit,' Iran the
unlearn which had been filed, that the infant was most de-
sirous of being alined to live with General Lygon and
Lady Louisa Lyeon ; that she had expressly stated
this to Sir Oeorge Rose, and that she had with tears
entreated him to sanction her removal from the family of
Or Charles and Lady Itushout. It was contended that the
=lady's wish*s and inclination should guide the court
an other considerations. She was nnw Iti years of
gm amid therefore fully capable of judging what would be
ORM Wry to madam to her harries. Besides this,
Se la et bar mother was explicit ia appointing

General Lygon and his sister joint guardians with Lady
l'echerell, and ni on her death General Lygon and his
sister were the persons who, by every rule of the court,
ought to be entrusted with the care end assuagement of the
iefant's education.
Mr. 'lethal, Mr. Bteon, and Mr. Leach, in support of
' Mailer's decision. submitted that General Lygon end
his r were not the moat proper persons to have the
custody of this infant. General 'Aeon was • bachelor
and an old man, and Lady Louisa- Lygow was • maiden
lady, older than her brother and in ill health, and although
it was not fir a moment intended to be urged that these
persons were not of the highest charaeter, still they were
not denies Cher persons who should have the care of a
young lady just 16 years of age. On the other hand, Lady
Ku-bout was the mother of four children, the two eldest
were daughters, very near the age of Lady Maria Coventry,
and well calculated to he her companions. Lady Itushout
under these circumstances was • snore likely person to
know what was the most proper education for the infant
than an elderly maiden lady sod an old bachelor. It was
contended that the Master had done perfectly right in se-
lecting Sir ('harks and Lady Rushout's house as a fit place
of residence lot the Sur int.
Mr. Stuart, in reply, urged the Vice. Chancellor that he
should have • private interview with the young lady her-
self, to ascertain what were her real wittiest nu. All roe.
et
ris.r.dence between her and (learn! Lygon had been put
a stop to by Sir Cheri.. Kaduna, who bail actually intar•
cepted bee letb es, and there were now several letters pro-
dun d in court which had bet n stopped before they reached
the infant. The learned counsel then pointed nut a great
many inaccuracies in the statements on the other side.
Ile mid that General Lygon was by no means an old man,
that Lady Louisa Lygon was younger than her brother,
and was in perfectly good health, and that they were both
of them well qualified to undertake the care and education
of the young lady.
Toe Vice-Chaniellor said he certainly should not decide
this ease without having before Menai the evidence which
the Master himself had ; part of this consisted in what the
young lady hid herself stated at • private interview with
Sir °verge Rase. lie should, therefore, ascertain what
were the wishes of Lady Maria Coventry, and for this pur-
pose lie would request that she should attend him as early
wit could be made emvenient to her.
Mr. Stuart then suggested that his Honour should open
end read the letters which had been written by Lady Louisa
Lygon to the infant, and which had been intercepted by
Sir Charles %sellout, in order to ascertain whether they
contained anything calculated to unsettle the mind of the
infant or induce her to be ilisaatistied with Sir Charles and
Lady Itio.bout. Ile had authority for stating that they
cont.iin.d nothing of the sort, although it had been sug-
gested by counsel on the opposite side.
The lee Chancellor said he did not think it necessary to
read the letters himself. Ile was perfectly satisfied with
what had been stated. lie should not at present express
any opinion of the very peculiar course adopted by Sir
Charles Itushout with regard to these letters.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—SATURDAY.

Tut BAIL QI;ESTION.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips on taking his seat referred to
the impertant question of bail in cases of accommodation
bills. The object he had in view by refusing bail was to dis-
courage that which the Chief Commissioner had moat pro-
perly culled a " desolating system." The Insolvents Acts,
which it was the duty of this court to administer, were
framed on the most indulgent basis. The discharge on bail
was a matter entirely in the discretion of the court, and the
qur stion was, whether that discretion should he exercised
in favour of men who took upon themselves the debts of
others when they could not pay their own. It was admitted
that when • clear ease of remand appeared on the face of
a schedule, such as is actions for seduction, &r., that bail
ought not to be accepted, and he thought that where it
clearly appeared on the face of a schedule that debts had
been incurred without reasonable expectations of payment,
it was a case to refuse bail. His two excellent colleagues,
however, thought otherwise, and (or the great respect he
entertained tor themand for the sake of uniformity, he wus
willing to give way. Thanks to some able men and the
public petal, the spirit of law reform wu abroad; it was
in the very neighbourhood, and he hoped it would not pass
them by unvisited.
The learned Commissioner by thus yielding has conferred
a great benefit on applicants to the court.