The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-11 00:00:00

Before Tlee-Chanoellor Knight Bruce.
TAYLOR V. COOPER. CONSTRUCTION OP WILL--
WHETHER A RIGHT TO HATE A LEASE WAS CONFINED
TO THE PERSON OP THE GRANTEE, OR PASSED TO HIS
ENECUTORS.—WiIIiam Cooper, by his will, after giving cer-
tain household furniture and other property to his wife, be-
queathed his four leashold houses, numbered 6,7, 8, and 9,
in Titehborne-street, to his cousin William Cooper, and
George Taylor, their executors, administrators, and assigns,
upon trust to pmy the rents and profits thereof, as they from
time to time should become due, to the testator's wife or her
assigns for her life; and after her decease he gave and be-
queathed the said leasehold houses to his said cousin William
Cooper, his executors, administrators and asaigns,for all his, the
testator's, estate, term, and interest therein ; subject, never- I
theless, and upon condition, that he or they should
and would grant and execute an underlease of two
of the said houses, being Nos. 6 and 7, unto the said George
Taylor, for the residue of his, the testator's, interest therein
(wanting 10 days), at the yearly rent of U., including the
land-tax, which had been redeemed ; the lease to commence
from the quarter-day next ensuing the decease of his said
wife, and to contain coverer:tits similar to those contained in
the lease under which he, the teetator,held the same premises ,•
and so as the lessee should execute a counterpart thereof,
&c. The testator died in 1827, and the executors proved
the will in 1828. George Taylor died in 1837, leaving the
testator's widow and his co-executor, William Cooper,
surviving him. Upon the widow's death, the present
bill was filed by Taylor's executor against Cooper, to I
compel the latter to grant an under-lease, pursuant to
the testator's will. This was resisted by Cooper, on the
ground that the under-lease was intended by the testator as I
a personal favour to George Taylor, and not intended to
descend to George Taylor's executors or administrators.
Mr. Goodeve appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. Torriano, for
the defendant, observed upon the absence of the words
" executors, administrators, and assigns," in the will, after
the name of George Taylor, although those words appeared,
in every other part of the will. It was in evidence that I
Taylor was living in one of the houses at the time he made
his will.
His Honour was of opinion that the direction in the will
was not intended as a merely personal benefit to Taylor, and
therefore that the plaintiff was entitled. The plaintiff, how-
ever, must take the under-lease subject to the covenants
under which the testator held the premises ; and one of these
covenants was, to pay the ground-rent.
WILSON r. PAREER.—RIGHTS OP DIRECTORS OP RAIL-
WAY COMPANIES IN RESPECT OP FEES FOR ATTENDANCE.
—The bill was filed by the directors of the Arigna Iron and
Coal Company against twe persons named Parker and Flat-
tery, who had formerly been directors, praying that they
might he compelled to transfer certain stock standing in their
names belonging to the company, to the plaintiffs. By the
14th section of the 6 GPO. IV., cap. 181, by which the com-
pany is constituted, the directors were to invest 10,0001. in
their names, within one month after the passing of the
act, as a guarantee fund ; and it was enacted that
the said aunt should not be sold out or transferred
until the fund thereinafter created for contingencies (namely
a fund of 20,0000 should be raised. The defendant Parker
(whose care alone was considered on the present °cession)
had been one of the directors in whose names the 10,0001.
had been invested. He had been elected four times a director,
but ultimately, in rotation, went out of the directorship : and
he refused to transfer the stock produced by the 10,0001. to
the other directors, until he had been paid the money due to
him for attendances. It appeared that be was entitled by
the rules of the company to two guineas for every attendance,
and that he bad attended 430 times. On the other hand it
appeared that other directors had not received such payments.
The company had never raised the 20,0001. fund.
Mr.'Ruasell and Mr. Heathfield appeared for the plaintiffs ;
Mr. Wigram and Mr. Chandless for the defendant Parker ;
and Mr. Haig for the defendant Flattery.
His Honour was of opinion that the defendant Parker had
no hen on the fund for the money due to him for his atten-
dances, although probably he might be entitled to recover it
in some other way ; he was, therefore, not entitled to stop
the transfer of the fund on the ground °then. Neither did
it appear that be, as trustee, had incurred any particular
costs in relation to the fund ; consequently he bad no right,
ou that ground, to resist the transfer. The transfer must,
therefore, be made.