The Express.
London, England, 1852-07-03 00:00:00

itau) intelligence.

E(.11:111" COURTS.—YurzaDAT.
13u olka 11. Lams Jeanne or Arrui-
Moourtiot onv.CoLVIN.

ads WU an fruit a derision of the Master of the
It al-peari el that a Dr. Cochrane, who had amass,
a i.ousidsrable fortune as a medical ufticer in the service of
the East India Company, in IBIS, while residing in India,
tale a will. leaving his daughter by a lady, a native of
I that country, a lac of rupees, equivalent in value to 12,:staff.
The daughter was went to be educated in England, and
I upon the completion of her (duration her father, who bad
retutmil ta Lugland, .rut her back to India, end on that
oecaaMit wrote ta a particular friend there, to whose guar-
dimming and charge he confided hi r, aletter to the following
efeet in regard to her settlement in life I shall he natu
rally unsious. You may assure the young gentleman, and
he may ehooec that, on his marriage with her, he shall hare
2,000.'. Ott thug ; nor wilt that be all, she is and shall be
noticed is my will, but to what further amount I cannot
way. owing to the present reduced and reducing state of
interest, which puts it out of my power to determine at
present what (may have to dispoee ot." The plaintiff Moore-
hon.e. then an ensign in the company's service, after the
arrival of the lady to Ladle, made proposals to her of mar•
siege, surl was then informed of the letter written by
her (ether, awl elm of the will he had made.
Atter ante ne_otiations the marriage was solemn.
iced m lhai, an I in 1529 Mr. and Mrs. Moorchounc
returned to England. 1/r. Cochrane since the birth of his
daughter i.ail, Omagh het mother was living, married an-
other lady, I.) uliom he had two sons; and in 11429 he
i made a will in favour o(that lady and her eons by him, with
remainder in favour or his daughter, in case they should die
without issue. anil afterwards died, without having made
any other ;ir.s...ion fur his daughter. The suit was iusti-
, tuied by Mr. ar.d Mrs. hloosehouse, claiming scum of
I 12,..selinf. out.of the assets of her father, on the ground that
the statement made by him in the letter written by him to
his mend in India, had formed part of the inducement to
the marriage of the plaintiffs, and that it in fact amounted
to a contract to give by his will a lac of rupees to his
daughter. The Master of the Hulls had dismissed the bill.
Mr. Bethel! and Mr. Toiler, for the plaintiffs, contended
that the lett, rin question admitted of the interpretation
that the testator had given, or intended to give, the dough.
ter a lac of rupees, at least by his will • that it bad been
so interpreted by his friend in India, who had represented
him in the negotiation of the marriage, and had communi•
rated the efLit of the will before the marriage to Mr.
Moorehouse. It was contended that this interpretation of
the agent hail formed part of the inducement to the mar-
riage, and that toe father was, therefore, bound to make it
Pot
Mr. Willcock and Mr. W. Morris, who appeared for the
defendants, the executer', were not called upon to address
the court.
_

Their lordships were of opinion that tho letter in gun-
tion amounted to a contract by Dr. Cochrane to settle
;Ohio:. upon the marriage; but nothing beyond. They said
it might possibly be held that it was a contract to settle
2,001.11. on the marriage, and give something more by will ; '
and as nothing had been given by will, the daesidant might
possibly have a right of action for nominal damages ; but that
right, ti it existed, was one which could not be dealt with
in this court. The cas., was one of extreme hardship upon
the plaintiffs, but the court had no alternative but to prat
the proper construction upon the letter.
The appeal was consequently dismissed.

Setae& JAIWI PAWL
CLAY V. RV 110111).—Tme DILOITWICH PATINT SALT
_COMPANY AND TUB BKITLIM ALKALI COMPANY._

This ease WasbeardOn ;i ;;;;: • The
following is an outline of the facts prior and up to the
month of May, 18.16 : Two rival joint-stock companies car-
ried on burliness at Droitwich as manufacturers of salt and
alkali. This rivalry destroyed the profits of both coins.
nits. Negotiations were entered into for putting an end to
the rivalry, which resulted in an agreement, which was re.
lured into minutes. and was signed by the plaintiff, Mr.
Clay. acting for the Droitwich Patent Salt Company, and
by the defendant, Mr. ltutford, acting on behalf of the
British Alkali Company. " Heads of an agreement be-
tween William Clay, on behalf of the Droitwich Patent
Salt Company, and Francis Itufford, Esq., on behalf of the
British Alkali Company The Droitwich Patent Salt Com-
pany to Leese for 21 years to the British Alkali Company,
at a net yearly rent of 4,0001., the whole of their property
and works at Droitwich, subject to the agreement subsisting
between the company and Lord Somers, J. H. Bradley,
aad Joseph A. Farden. The British Alkali Company to
tale the stock of salt, moveable utensils, boats and barges,
and materials useful for the trade at • valuation in the usual
way, to be paid for by two bills, half at three months and
half at sin months, and also to give a bill at twelve months
for 3,000/., the amount of a mortgage secured on
the works, the lease to contain an option to the British
Alkali Company to purchase the works at any time within'!
21 years, should they see fit, for a sum of 80,0001., the title
which the 1/nntwich Patent Salt Company poetess to be ac-
cepted as auMeieut, and if the purchase should be eom•
plat,' within 10 years from the date of the lease, an abate-
ment of 3,0001. shall Le made from the purchase money.
The soreemeat to be subject to the consent of the pro-
prietors of the Droitwich Salt Company.—London, May 5,
111.46." This agreement was confirmed at a general meet•
ire of the Druitwich Company, at which the directors were
empowered to carry it into effect. A valuation of the stock
and plant wasprocceded with, and in the progress of the
valul tiou the British Alkali Company. being desirous of
taking possession of the works of the Droitwich Compaq
in the mean time, were let into possession on the 4th of
July, 1146, without prejudice to the agreement, and so con-
tinued until the Ist of July, 1850. Shortly after the
Brutish Alkali Company had been let into possession of
these works, disputes arose respecting the repairs which the
leaeng company was homed to do poor to the acceptance of
the lease by the British Alkali Company. These disputes
terminated in the present suit. ilia bill was filed on the
22nd of May, 1847, praying the specific performance of the
aTheeraerrng entef the cost occupied several days in De-
cember, 1819, before the Vice Chancellor Sir Jangle
Wigram, when that learned judge directed • use to he
it tied for the opinion of a court of law, upon the validity
of the agreement of the 6th of May, 1840. That court,
however, on the case being argued before it, considering
that the question was not properly raised, declined to give
an opinion on the case.
The cause having been set down in this court for rehear-
ing, was argued at great length on several days by Mr.
Bethell, Mr. Willeock, and Mr. Terrell for the plaintiff.,
and by the Solicitor-General and Mr. Speed for the de-
fendant. Various points were raised in argument, which
will be found referred to in the observation. of the Vice-
Chancellor.

Hit Honour delivered judgment this day. After
stating the object of the bill and the purport of the
above agreement fully, hie Honour proceeded thus :
This agreement was subject to the consent of the proprietors
of the Droitwich Patent Salt Compa, and consequently a
meeting was convened on the 2nd of tune, 1846, at which a
resolution was passed and signed by all the members of that
company then present, confirming the agreement. Upon
the bill which was filed for specific performance of the
agreement the case came on to be heard before Vice-Chan-
cellor Sir James Wigram, who after disposing cf some of the
point@ which WPM argued, thought it right te direct a ems
for the opinion of the Court of Exchequer, and the quits.
tics submitted to that court was whether the plaintiff, as
the saeegtng director of the Droitwich Patent Salt Com-
pany. had power to enter into each an agreement as that of
May, 1846 ? That cam was argued before the Court of Ex-
chequer, and it was sufficient to say that the learned
judges declined to give any opinion. So far the
use could net be dimmed of in the manner
contemplated by Sir Jamie Irlipum, and the result was
that it now come an before me en a petition of rehearing.
Various defenses were obviously open to the defendants on
the rehearing. The Ant mule was that part of the agree-
ment that the weekeshreld he in a fair tenantable condition,
and that they ware arse as when the British Alkali Com-
' pasty entered intoadest. On consideration of the ve-
dette', Sir James came to the conclusion that the
defen lane hail f se prove that it was one of the terms
of the agreement deaths weeks 'Maki be in a fair work-
ing condition. The itedi was silent on the sub-
ject, and I aortae fn the eemldta te which Sir James
Wigren came as to that paint. The it on the re-
hearing has mainly been ea die mandi that the memeghs
directors of the Drotririell Omamay, with the media et a
gourd meeting, had enema fate embed MestWad the
company, and that was the point ea Ilia rr Zamee
Wage= thought it right to beet the isesembegtem of •
court of law, and in which the wait of me m= law riselleed
to give an opinion, because It thenght thin** masselea was
partly an equitable one. The power et the ammaglag
director, to enter into this agreement depended as thispro•
'fleets of the deed of settlemest of the Delitiridt Com-
pany, dated the 30th of March, 1826. [His Mem here
referred at length to the particular clauses in the deed. The
fourth clause authorised the directors "to sell,
exchange, or lease all or asL of property for the time
being of the company."] They might think it proper to
let. but this was a power in the nature of a trust, and no
doubt such power might be exercised by three in
whom it was vested. Then it was said that the
managing directors had obtained the sanction of a general
meeting to do that which was within the seeps of the deed,
and that then they had relieved themmives from the pos-
sible imputation that they were =alai ea Improper me of
their power. If the case turned on this pant elate, I
shouli have no hesitation in saying that the lease in ques-
tion was within the powers of the deed. Bet the contract
contained this provision, " that the Imo wee le emalaia an
option to the British Alkali Company m purchase the works
at any tint* within 21 years, shoehl they see its la • war
01 eermseri." Ou giving the matter the hew eensilletation
which I could, I think that this is a teem of the agreement
which the managing ;edam had no authority to
enter into. Consider the idlest of it. It is an
agreement under which the iiiialinagl/2 tile lee-
nee are entirely free ; they hid a* of
any kind to purchase at all, bet it eentemplated that the
managing partner of the Drolerich Cowpony should he
bound at any rinse within 21 years to sell thdr pregerty
for the sum of 110,00 W. to the ether esimpasy, The gems-
ire lestly of dm Dmitri& Ousgany was he enemies no
discretion windier the ode esslibe fee the built of the
tom s• whisk they rortimatol. It Night y pre-
sumed that it wield be need igueires to hid down all the
Wan swagging Oman hr ea weenie& eabeed isle hy
their predessome thd a
nee *NM Maw phdej sad OM
• mg that period they woe le he presin Dem NOM
to any ate hut the lessese, however beselicial lade a
tramaactiaa might be. My *Wes, therefore, is, thalami'
• contrast could not be entered late by the
body under the powers in the deed. =g l
aa
elm* power of sale, troetwes could not enter isle id
*easiest of this kind beading them who might succeed them