The Express.
London, England, 1847-06-10 00:00:00

reported in this journal last Monday. On the question 'of
nets, which was reserved, the Lord Chancellor now said he
emit% not find
rule and
in the case to take it out of
the ritual rule, and he therefore thought the appeal should
be dismissed with costs.
PllallY O. MiDDOWCROM.—QIDLITION OF LIOITIMACT
Or A reams' BORN ATIIIR NULLITY or MARRIAGE or ate
Paalters.—This appeal signet an order overruling excep-
tions to the mater's report we opened some days ago, by
Mr. Bethell, and the circumstances of the case were then
reported in this journal. The Lord Chancellor, without
hearing the arguments out, expressed en opinion that some
further Proceeding ought to he taken to esoertain whether
the party who filed the exceptions MIS legitimate or not, and
the cue stood for the part; counters consideration of that
suggretion
Mr. Bothell now proposed that two issues be directed, one
to try whether the decree of nullity of the marriage of the
party's parents (see Meddowcroft v. Meadow:reit," 2,
gards Consictory Reports, p. 207) was procured by
fraud and collusion ; and the other, to try whether this party
was the eldest male lineal descendant of William Meddow-
croft, septum of the testator in the cause, and that with that
view the order of the Master of the Rolla be reversed, and
the empties' stand over to abide the malt ot the trial of 1
the ismo—Mr. Hodgson, who appears to support the
RAW MOM Muter oft he Rolls, objected to the proposed
prossoillop..—The Lord Chaccellor thought two issues m-
ammary, u the second issue, proposed to try the question of
legitimism of the party, would dispose of the whole question.
lamed of an issue, however, his lordship gave leave to the
a hill, and thereby raise the question of legitimacy, and in
that ease he would reverse the order of the Muter of the
Rolls, leaving the exceptions to stand over.
DEAN or KLT O. BLIBB.—His lordship, referring to this
came, which was heard on a former day. and reported in this
.
paper`.r the question being, whether the right to tithes was
by the Limitation Act, 3 and 4, W. 4., said he consi-
dered it necessary to have another opinion from the common
law judges on the construction of the act. He therefore
adored a ease similar
to to that on
be submitted for the opini
Court of Comm Pleas.
ALLIS R. HMO= AND OTRRIIR.—FtEsT AND SECOND
ECIITITARLIMOI7O•OIIII.—PRIORITY.,-Thi• DU an appeal
from a decree of ViseChaneellor Wigram upon the follow-
mtegg slats of facts. The plaintiff, William Allen, and three
oche s, via., Lewis Allen, Charles Allen (now deemed), and
Knight, one of the defendants, were trustees of
?,1701r, New Time-and-a-Quarter per Cent. Annuities, un-
der the will of one Harris. They sold out that fund, and
lent the proceeds to the two latter of them, upon their de-
positing with L. Allen the documents constituting the title
to certain copyhold property, of which the two, C. Allen and
G. Knight, were tenants in common. They also executed a
memorandum of agreement to perfect a legal mortgage, and
deposited it with the plaintiff. This was in 1836. In
the year 1838, Charles Allen, having somehow obtained
possession of the documents of title of the copyhold, ob-
tained from a Mr. and Mrs. Smith 6001., upon deposit of the
documents relating to his moiety of the same. C. Allen,
soon after that second equitable mortgage, became bank-
rupt, and thereupon the plaintiff gave notice of the prior
mortgage. That we. the first notice Mr. and Mrs. Smith
had of the prior mortgage. They, in 1844, got from the
assignees of the bankrupt a conveyance of the legal estate.
The plaintiff, in kis character of trustee, filed his bill to
enforce the first mortgage in priority to the second, the
property not being equal to all the incumbrances. The
Vice-Chancellor decreed in favour of the plaintiff.—Mr.
Reit and Mr. R. Palmer were heard last Saturday in 'rap-
port of the decree. Mr. Remaly and Mr. T. Fisher were
now heard for the appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Smith. They
cited • great number of mom
The Lord Chancellor said he had no doubt in the case,
and, after stating the facts at length, said the first equitable
mortgagee was entitled to priority. The conveyance of the
legal estate did not, under the circumstances, give the second
mortgagees a better title than they had before, because they
had notice of the first chugs before they got that convey-
ance. And the mere common of the estate, or of the title
deed., did not confer a better right on them. They did not
either answer, state, or suggest any fraud in C. Allen's
havi possession of the documents ; they stated nothing to
diaentitle the first incumbramer. The authorities were in
favour of the plaintiff, and, at so facts were stated or sug-
gested in the answer to warrant any inquiry, no inquiry
might to be granted. His lordship was satisfied that the
Vice-Chanithr's judgment was right, and the appeal should
be dismissed with casts.