The Express.
London, England, 1851-11-07 00:00:00

Raba intelligence.

EQUITY COURTS.—YESTERDAY.
Harms ins Loses JURTICIA or aresia.
PELLY O. WATHEX.
This was a petition of appeal from the decree made in
the cause by Vice-Chancellor Wigram, in March, 1819. It
appeared that in 1.839 the plaintiff became second mortgagee
of the freehold estates of one AVilliam Lewis, the legal
estate in which was then vested in a first mortgagee. In
1811 the mortgaged property was sold by Lewis, the mort-
gagor, and upon the completion of the sale the legal estate
in fee was assigned by the first mortgagee to Bassett, one
of the defendants, as trustee fur Lewis, and a term of years
in the souse property was assigned to Gurney, upon a like
trust. Before and at the time of the sale
the defendants Wathen, Bassett, and Gurney were
partner* as solicitors, and on the completion of
the sale the title deeds relating to the property in molt-
gage came into their hands as solicitors for William Lewis,
by whom they were retained in the matter of the Kale. At
that time certain mortgages made in 1840 and 1811, and
which were entitled to a priority over the plaintiff 'a mort•
gage, had liceolue vested in Wathen by assignment. The
bill was filed by the plaintiff as Pula' mortgagee against
the mortgagor and the pia mortgagees for redemption.
The defendants Wathen and Bassett had been partners as
solicitors before the introduction of Gainey into the firm,
and it appeared that certain document, relating to the mort-
gaged property had originally come into the possession of
the firm AVathen and Bassett as solicitors of Lewis, and hail
been retained in the possession of the new firm created by
the introduction of Gurney as a partner. The questions to
be determined were first whether the lien claimed by the '
defendants upon the documents in their pos.essitm was
good, not only against the mortgagor but also against the
plaintiff. Secondly, whether the lien originally acquired
by the firm Watheu and Bassett continued utter the tatera-
tMit of the firm by the introduction of Gurney ; thirdly,
' whether the lien claimed by the firm Watheu soil
Bassett extended to papers which first came into the
possession of the firm Wathen, Bassett and Gurney;
Mortlily, whether Wathen was entaledtua lien upon the
title deeds which had come into his possessiuu, not as soli-
citor of Lewis, but asasaignee of the mortgagees of 1810 and
1811 ; and, fourthly, what was the proper form of decree
to he made, having regard to the various mortgagee and
ineumbrances upon the property. The court below had
decided, first, that the claim of lien of the defendants, as
solicitms, has subject to any prior equitable claim in the
plaintiff, although the deeds might have come into the pos-
ses-ion of the solicitors without notice of such prior cquita•
blc claim; secondly, that the lien of Wathen and Bassett upon
the papa•rs brought by them into the new firm still continued;
thirdly, that the firm, Wathen and Bassett, could have no
lien upon payers which first cane into the possession of
the firm AN ;alien, Bassett, and Gurney ; and lastly, that
Wathen WAS nut entitled to any lieu as against his client
upon papers of which he had become possessed, not as soli-
citor to the client, but as assigner of the mortgagee's.
Mr. Bolt, Mr. Follett, and Mr. Bazalgette, were heard in
support of the appeal ; and the Solicitor-General and Mr.
1k sir in support of the Vice-Chatowlior's judgment.
'their Lordships said they would take time to consider
their judgment.

BEPOR Tin MS.TI 4 of TH. ROW.
FLIOUT T. THE DeILS OF UCCKINGIIAM,

The further hearing of this ease w•.iy resumed and con•
eluded. _ .

It appeared from the statement of Mr. Ileum.ll, fur the
plaintiff, that in February, 1845, a deed was entered into
between the Duke of Buckingham and the Marquis of
Chandus, in which the marquis agreed, in consideration of
an annuity of 1,000/. or of 3,000/, if be married, to join
with the duke is charging the entailed estates of the duke,
with 1,100,0001. to be applied in liquidation of the duke's
debts. On the 27th of May, 1847, another deed was eve-
nasal between the same parties. It recited that under the
powers of the femur deed 409,0001. had bten raised, but
that the duke, instead of applying that amount
to the payment of his debts, had applied more
than 200,000/. of it to his own purposes ; that
further debts had been incurred, a list of which was given
in a schedule of the dead, and that the total amount was
1,461,000/. It then recited that the duke had applied to
the marquis to join him to charge the estates with a sum
sufficient to liquidate the debts, and that the marquis had
refused, hut had proposed to purchase the estates. The
deed then proceeded to convey the Buckingham and Chandua
estates and the unsettled estates and chattels, which latte r
were stated in the deed to be of the value of 330,00 d/. to the
marquis, it being covenanted that the marquis should first
receive 3,0001. a year, and that he should then at his
discretion apply the remainder of the rents and profits
towards liquidating the debts mentioned in the schedule.
Mr. 11oupit contended that the deed was invalid, on the
ground of want of consideration. The only consideration
was, that the marquis, the purchaser, should receive 3,0001.
a year. There was no covenant to pay the debts, but the
marquis was, at his d acretion, to form a fund towards pay-
ing them. The value of the property was two millions;
the debts a million and a half; and he contended, there -
fore, that the deed was a mere colourable deed entered
into with a view to delay and defraud the creditors, and
teat the real effect of it was that the marquis was to be a
trustee fur the duke and receive 3,0001. a year for manage- •
ment, which was borne out by the circumstance that them
was a covenant in the deed that the marquis should ac-
count to the duke. Ile also alleged that ea only was the
consideration colourable, but the schedule of debts
was colourable also, as it did nut include many
debts which the duke at that time owed. As
further drawing that there was no valuable consideration
in the deed, the learned counsel chill a case in the
Court of Exchequer, reported in the Law Journal, in which
the Marquis of Chandin appealed against a decision of
the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, who had decided
that the deed was subject to an ad valorem duty of 1,0001.,
and it was contended on the part of the marquis that the
consideration was merely nominal, and that the deed, there-
fore, was subject only to the 355. stamp, and the court de-
cided in his favour.

Mr. Rogers followed, contending that the plea that the
deed was executed iu good faith was insufficient. It might
be, indeed, that the deed was executed in ;good faith
between the parties, but in bad faith towards the creditors.
Nor was the plea supported by any averment.
Mr. liemaley, is reply, contended that the plea was good
in farm and substance. It was geed in point of substance
inasmuch as the marquis covenanted to indemnity the duke
eirinst his creditors. Then it should he remembered that,
with the exception of the unsettled estates, the duke was
merely tenant fur life; the limitation of the estates was by
the owners, and though no money passed between the duke
sod the marquis, yet as the marquis covenanted to lay aside
the rents and profits, after paying himself 3,000 L a year, to
form a fund to pay the debts and indemnify the duke
against the creditors, that was a valuable and sufficient con-
sideration.
His Honour said he would give his decision on Monday.