The Express.
London, England, 1852-06-02 00:00:00

Mate became and was still liable for any claims In respect
of such property. lie (the Lord Chancellor) did not see
how he could restrain the company from enforcing the
liability. The devieese for the company had not dose any-
thing to deprive themselves of such a right. He saw no.
thing whatever in the acquiescence of the company—in
their not having takes any motion against the real estate,
which could affect their right. Then it wu said that the
real estate could only be attacked by moaned an adminis-
trative suit, and only when it we. shown that the per-
' sons' estate was imitlicient. That question he was not
going
dto decide, nor was it fur the court to do so. It might
that the personalty should be lint exhausted but the
parties had no right to contend that they were not liable in
respect of the real estate. With great deference to the
barna judge below, and sincere respect for his opinion, he
(the Lord Chancellor), on a full consideration of the case,
was Or 'genies that the liability remained, that the devisees
nu ebe pet ea the lint as contribi -- • -
Tbejedgiseet of the learned Vi
fore, reversed.

weep there-

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-YESTERDAT.
dam I Nut Mays ug Corms. 8167011 MIL Jcencii

Crum= up •• Carr on Juar.
PRIOR V. CHILIAL-HOl.lll CASs.

This was an action upon an 10 U for 311., part of 01,
the purchase money of a black mare sold by the plaintiff to
the defendant.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins and Mr. Prentice appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Crowder, Q C., and another learned gen-
tleman were for the defendant.

The plaintiff a warehouseman, and the defendant, Mr.
George Borlase Childs, is surgeon to the City police force.
In October, 1861, the defeadsot purchased of the plaintiff
the mare in question for COL, and paid him 91. and gave
the I OU, upon which the action was founded, for the
balance. According to the plaintiff's case it was an &bee- I
late sale, but the defendant's evidence was that he was to
have her for a week to see if he liked her, and that the sale
was conditional upon his being satisfied with her at the end
of that time. At all events the defendant was not satisfied
with the animal and he gave the pplaintiff notice of the
fact, and afterwards sold it, in accordance with his view of
the case that the sale was only a conditional one. Upon the
character and health of the mare the evidence was also con-
The plaintiff's case was that she was sound at the
time of sale and was so still, and in fact that she was now ea-
pal& of trotting a mile in three minutes, and of walking five
miles an hour, with a ton weight behind her, and that she
was worth 70 guineas. The evidence of the defendant's
witnesses was, that she was in bad health when he had her,
that she was a whistler," and that she was lame in one
of her fore feet. _ _ _

The case occupied the whole of the day, and many wit-
nesses were called on both sides, but the above statement
*Wain' the materiel facts.

Theory stopped the learned Judge in his summing up,
by announcing that they were of opinion that the sale was
an unconditional one, and a verdict was consequently en-
tered for the plaintiff for 311.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—YzarzaDAT.
BriToms v Butoo.—BoosSes!,. ivories havis. Ms. Jcenca

-M•uut,-.136-11.a. Jusrica hewn a.

DOE DZX. RODIIIMON O. CIARDIXZR....-THE STATDTZ Or

LIMITATIONS.

The learnt of the plarniernthlsca se Bought to recover
possession of a moiety of premises worth 1201. a year, and at '
the trial a verdict was entered for the lessor of the plaintiff
for nominal damages, but it was arranged that &special case
should be prepared for the opinion of the court upon the
question whether the action was barred by the Statute of
Limitations, the 3& 4 William IV., cap. 27. The case
now came on for argument.
The argument occupied nearly the whole of the day, and
at its conclusion their lordships took time to consider the
matter. _ _