The Express.
London, England, 1848-06-05 00:00:00

tato Enttlitsclut.

EQUITY COURTS.
la fore the Lord Chancellor.
Ex rAttrs °Unsays, is an NasH.—Bssta rrer.—
SUPEVAKOSIAS ABB.—This was a case by way of appeal
from Vice Chancellor Knight Brune, chief judge in bank-
ruptcy. Mr..l. Russell was proceeding to state it on a
former day, when the Lord Chancellor observed that the
whole case was a long statement of facts, and no question of
law or evidence was raised for the court. The case was then
withdrawn, for the purpose of having it amended.--Mr. R.
Palsper, in the absence of Mr. Russell, now opened the case,
regretting that the Vice Chancellor could not in his view of
the act of parliament make any alteration in it. The
learned counsel then contended that the case was sufti.
dent, and a conclusion was drawn by the judge below
from the facts stated in the case.—The Lord Chan-
cellor, after hearing Mr. Swanaton, with whom was
Mr. Wins and Mr. Bagley, for the Maws. Our-
say, said he would bear the euse.—Mr. Palmer then stated
dm facts, to this effect. In 1840 Mr. Henry Gurney
and Mr. John Nash, the bankrupt, entered into
partnership as hop merchants. Mr. William Brodie Our-
wy, father of Henry, lent the firm 2,0001. en their joint note,
and Mr. Thomas Gurney, brother of Henry, lent them
wither sum. The partnership went on until 1841, when
differences having arisen between the partners, they, by the
advice of friends, executed a deed whereby Mr. Hickey, a
creditor b a large amount, and a ids J amieson, were ap-
pointad inspectors to realise the property of the firm and pay
the debts, &c. Some difficulties were thrown in the way of
the inspector, by the partners, or one of them, and oa their
statement that they could not set, Mr. Gurney, senior, pre-
sented a petition, under the Act 5 & ti Vie. c. 122, for a list
against Mr. Nash only. At that time there was far more
than sufficient estate to meet Mr. Gurney's demand, but
Sir. Nash had not the means ready in cash without disposing
of part of the estate. He accordingly agreed to sell hops
to Messrs. Barclay, Perkins, and Co , for 4,0001.
The Messrs. Gurney prevented the removal of the hops, and
thereby prevented Nash from fiodieg payment for
Mr. Gurney's 2,0001. It was on that debt that the fiat was
issued, and it was issued 'gated an estate which Mr. Gurney
knew was not insolvent at the time. It was agaiast the
policy of the bankrupt laws to issue a commission under there
circumstances against one partner only of a firm. The ob-
ject evidently was to deprive Mr. Nash of all control ovar the
property of the partoeiship, and give the whole control and
management of it to Mr. Henry Gurney, the other partner.
Under these circumstances, he urged that the fiat so issued
°nicht to be superseded, and he cited, ao.ong other cases,
"Ex parte Brown" (I Rose, 151), " parte Christie" (1
Montague and Bligh, 314), and " Ex parte Phipps" (3 Mon-
tague and De Gee. 905).—The Lord Chancellor, without
hearing the counsel on the other side, said it struck him that
there was no case made fur the interference of this vitrt lie
would, however, read the case through, and if he should
form an opinion different from his present impression he
would state it.

Before the Vlee•Chaneeller of England.
STILES P. GI:T.—LIABILITY OP Co-ex terrons.—This
unit was instituted for the administration of the estate of
John Tucker who had appointed Anthony Guy, since de.
ceased, his confidential "oheitor, Richard Tuckey, his ne-
phew, and Richard Tuckey, his ion, executors and trustees
of his will. It nppeszed that Anthony Guy was the acting
executor, the other two executors not interfering until they
were called upon by the legates' to require Guy to render an
account and have the funds invested. In consequence of the
accounts not having been satisfactorily rendered, this bill
was filed in 182'J; and Anthony Guy, by his answer, ad-
mitted assets in his hands to the amount of 6,1001. An order
was served upon Guy requiring him to pay the money before
Novembee 6, 1829, but upon negotiations taking place
the time wu enlarged to the sth of January, 1830. In the
meantime, however, Guy became a bankrupt, and a supple.
mental bill was filed against his assignee, seeking to
make the co-executors liable for the loos. The co-executors
set up as a defence : first, that Guy could never have paid
the money in his hands if proceedings had sooner been
taken against him; secondly, that the adult parties inte-
rested in the hinds had a, quiesced in the money remaining
in Guy's hands ; and thirdly. that the enlargement of the
order for Guy to pay the 6,1001. into costa was made with-
out their knowledge or consent ; and that, as the money was
thereby lost, they were discharged. The cause was heard,
and a decree made in December, 1832, by which inquiries
were directed as to the facts alleged by the co-executors.—
The Muter reported that none of the adult parties had
acquiesced in the money being left in Guy's hands ;
and that if the time allowed him far paying the
money had not been enlarged beyond the C:h of November,
still he would have been unable to pay the amount. The
case now came on upon exceptions to that report, and upon
further directions. A variety of letters were produced
which had passed between the parties, and other evidence,
and it was contended that the trustees were not liable for
the fundswhich had been lost.—Mr. Bethell, Mr. Stuart,
Mr. Bevir, and Mr. Pitman appeared as counsel in the
case.—The Vice Chancellor said, upon a fair construction of
the letters and evidence, his opinion was that no acqui-
escence whatever had been ahownon the part of the legatees;
all they had required Veu that the money should be paid, in
order to gave the necessity of a chancery suit. Under these
circumstances he should direct the defendants, the co-exeen-
tors, to pay the money into court which was claimed by the

legatees..
BUSINESS OP TILE Contr.—The Lord Chancellor has
given notice that he intends to sit until the 10th of August,
at which period the long vacation will commence. Ihere
will he no sittings after the present term till the first seal,
which will be on the 24th of this month. The Lord Chan-
cellor has directed that after the end of this term the court
will rise every Saturday at two o'clock, and will not sit en
Mondays until eleven o'clock, but will continue to sit on
Mondays until four.

Before Vice-Chancellor Wig ram.
RAWLINGS T. MOSS.-PLEA TO BILL UP RETIVOR.—MS
Honour made an order overruling the ple s in this case, the
facts of which are mentioned in the Dolly News of Saturday
last. The ground of the decision was, that the want of a
formal appearance on the part of the deceased defendant
was not of itself an objection to a bill of revisor against her
personal representatives ; and particularly where, as in the
present case, a solicitor had professed to appear for her in the
several proceedings which had been had in the original
cause ; and the plea was unaccompanied by an averment that
the deceased defendant had no notice of such appearance on
her behalf, and that she was not bound thereby.
WALEEK V. EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY COMPANY.
—JURISDICTION.—The Solieitor.General (with whom was
Mr. J. H. Law) opened the case on behalf of the plaintiff,
and stated that the company, alter giving notice to the plain-
tiff of their intention to take certain premises in his occupa-
tion,
for the purposes of their undertaking, and refusing to
assent to the claim of compensation with which the plaintiff
had furnished them, bad nevertheless neglected to take the
steps prescribed by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act
(the provisions of which were incorporated in the
company's act), for the purple of assessing the
compensation due to the plaintiff as the owner of the
land. The bill, therefore, was filed for a specific perform-
ance of the agreement on the part of the defendants to be-
come purchasers cf the land, and praying also either for pay-
ment of the amount of compensation claimed by the plain-
tiff, or that the defendants might be decreed to take the ne-
cessary proceedings fur obtaining an arsesemelit of such com-
pensation. The question to be determined was, whether this
court had jurisdiction to enforce the specific performance of
the agreement by 'compelling the defendants to take the
aecesaary proceedings under the statute for that purpose.
The case for the plaintiff was not completed at the rising of
the court.