The Express.
London, England, 1864-01-20 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

sittings of Nisi Prins is Ididdlsesx.—(Bstore Kr. Jodie.
By's, sad • Comm Jury.)

This WY SE edam to recover a sum of money for 0001.
cannon upon pampering en offer of mousy to be advanced
upon mortinge, and alio a further sum for wort dace sad
expiatesincurred.
Mr. Bovill, Q.C.. and Mr. Quin appeared for the
; and Mr. Temple, Q.C.. and Sir. Kemple), for the
defendant: . . . .

The plaintiff wee a 'armor and valuer, in business at
Manchester end the deteodent was a coatas..ginner, at
I Earnley. n 1861 the plaintiff wan &ikons of boreal,*
000/. or 10,000/. upon IMO mill property, and he put
himself in oonimunioation with ths plaintiff. After= I
nod nsgotiieaoee the plaintiff, in August,lB63, was
to say that he had a party who was reedy to advance 8,0001.
at lii per cont., and this offer was accepted, and the soaker
pawed into the hands of the lawyers. In the cornea of investi-
gating the title, some objections were takes by the
lender's solicitors, which the defendant could not
meet, and the proposed loan was never made,
in consequence of theme °Nachos& The plaintiff ccetteaded
that he had done everythneg on his part to entitle hint to
his commission, and under tide head be claimed to recover
lAN., being a commission of w cent. upon the 8,0001. ;
and there was also 201. for valuing the property, sad about
V. 10s. forth' expellee of some journeys.
After some discussion it wu imaged that the matter
should be amicably settled ; and a verdict was taken by
consent for the plaintiff for 751.
Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Ede, and
Justices Williams, Willie, and Keating")

NORGAZ BIOTEMIS V. IMIGHT.-1111011
Tbe plaintiffs in this ewe were iagoes' of . teakrupt
named laight, sad they sued in borer to recover the value
of soros goods which it yam alleged that the bankrupt had
improperly beaded to hi me.
The Lord Chief JIMA* in delivering judgment, mid that
role had been psalm! to rot aside the verdict for the
defendant, and eater awe for the plaintiffs for 10(ii. ladle
these rinrunclasere :—Ths bankrupt wee already an anew-
-

tilleated baalnypt at the 11.. If the applioition under
which the pisialiffs beam miaow ; and. therefore, it
was 'aid that the mesa somaisisa was veld, and so rights
under it were vested in the eisolveni. It appeared
that after the first bankruptey the bankrupt had
traded, and in the cause el that trading had obtained the
goods in respect of which this actioe yea brought. The
assignees under the first baskroptcy had sot interfered in
any manner in the matter ; and it seensd wader the cir-
cumstances unequitable and mareseemible that the defend-
ant should be allowed to set up the right of the assignees
under the first bankruptcy in bar to this action. Altar re-
viewing a cumber of decided noes, hie lordship said that
there were several authorities for holding the second bank-
ruptcy void ; but, in the opinion of the court, the authori-
ties for holding it valid appeared to be the strongest ; and
therefore the .f the court was that the plaintiffs
were assignees under a valid bankruptcy, and the rule would
be made absolute to enter a verdict fer them for 1004
gale absolute.