The Express.
London, England, 1853-03-23 00:00:00

1 UAW lintelitgence.

EQUITY COURTS.-YESTLEDAT.
&groan aza Loans 'minces or AtPUT..
. ...

••••••
Saw,[..'. C. ASIILEY.—PRACTICE tNI/ER THE CHAN.
AMINDMEN r ACT, :6 and 16 V:c., c.
86, sec. 4.`

at, application by an initial legatee, by her next
friend, a ~at,:innia under the 4.5 th sec. of the Chancery
Pr'reabchtaii:ce7r"'Arnendnu. at Act, requiring tl.e executors of a de-
ceased testatrix to att.'ad b?tore the Master of the Rolls, at
Chambers, for the purpose of showing cause why an
order for the administration of the personal estate of the
deceased should not be granted. It appeared that the de-
ceased testatrix in this case was, at the time of making her
Will and of her death, a married woman ; and that the will
in question was made in exercise of a power of appoint-
ment. notwithstinding corerture, girth to her by a deed of
settlement made upon her marriage.
Mr. W. M. James and Mr. Kinglake appeared in sup-
port of the application, anal said that the question whether
a summons under the 45th section was applicable in the
drew:l43nm of the prelatic case, was submitted to their
lorpsnii;is Sy desire of the Master of the Rolls, wh was in
favour a.f &training the summons, but had declined doing so
ns a similar application under similar circumstances had
been refused by Vice .Chancellor Kindersley, on the ground
of want of jurisdiction under the act.
Mr. Roundell Palmer and Mr. Prenderpst, for the exe-
cutors, opposed the application en the grvund that the 45th
section of the statute was inapplicable to a case like the
present. That -action, they said, was meant to apply
' only where the general personal estate of a testator was
to be administered, and not to the case of a will of a mar-
ried wc,nan, who could have no general personal estate.
The estate now sought to be administered was simply the
property over which the power of appointment given to tile
testatrix extended; and did not include any chows in action
not reeluced into possession to which the deceased mig:.t be
entitled, and which cash not be administered in tile ab-
sence of her husband as her general personal representative.
This was shown by the fact the the probate granted to the
executors in the present case was limited to the property
affected by the power. The administration sought to be
obtained woo an adtuinist ation of the tru,ts of that deed,
and not of the general persoual estate of the deceased, as
required by the statute.
Their lordships were of opinion that the 45th section of
the statute applied both in letter and in spark to such •
case as the one before them, au.l that the court had juris-
diction, to grant a summons, and they remitted the to
the Master of the Wills with this intimation of their
opinion. They olserved that it was admitted that the ob-
ject sought by the legatee could be obtained by the more
tedious and expensive course of tiling a bill or a claim, and
that it would be a Wry narrow construction of the statute
to hold it inapplicable to such a cote.

Berns VICC•CIAPCCIIDD SID W. PAOI WOOD.
lliucna O. LANZ.

• Thu was was a bill filed by the representative of a deceased
partner, seeking an account of the partnership property.
The partner had died in 1926, leaving his residuary estate
to his widow and mother in equal moieties for their lives,
with provision fur the accumulivi•m of the share of the ene
first dying fur the testator's children, in case he had any
(which he had not), and if not, then for his brother: and
sisters. On the death of the testator, Thos. Lane was admitted
into the partnership. and (or some time 2001. per annum
was paid out of the business to the widow and mother, af-
terwards the payment was reduced to 1401. In July, 1831,
the mother died. Thomas Lace died in 1832. Joseph
Lane was then admitted into partnership, and afterwards
Charles Lane came in. In 1939 Joseph ceased to be a part-
ner ; in 1841 the widow, who had married one Moore, a
defendant, died; and then the brothers claimed to be en-
titled to some share of the property, and tiled the present
bill for an account of the propA•ty of the testator in the
hands of the partners, and for an inquiry as to what had
become of the assets.

_ ..... .
Mr. Holt and Mr. Prior fir the plaintiffs.
Mr Tollett and Mr. James, for tt:e defendants, contended
that there was no case for an account. The plaintiff might
have come to the court immediately after the death of the
testator, and was now barred by the statute of limitations.
Mr. Bazalgette, Mr. Bacon, and Mr. Kinglake for other
parties.
The Vice Chancellor now gave judgment, and after com-
menting upon the difficulty of the case from the lapse of
time and the want of evidence, and after recapitulating the
facts, said that property of the testator certainly had come
to the hands of Lane, and there was no evidence of any dis-
charge. The ordinary rule was that any party having
trust funds in his hands, and knowing that they were trust
funds, was liable to account, and lie (the Viee•Chancellor)
could not admit that in the present case there was a mere
debt due to the testator's account. It was property in the
partner's hands, and he became a trustee just as much as
the administratrix. That view of the cast: got rid of any
difficulty arising from the statute of limitations. lie must
therefore direct an account of the testator's estate left in
the partnership business, and how much of it had been ac-
counted for, and how much had not.

COURT OF BANHRUPTCY.-YESTERDAY.
Berms Ma. COWITISIOXaII EVAXA.
I t RR SRAW.—REMOVAL OP FIATS.

---
The bankrupt was a bookseller, stationer, and dealer in
musical instruments, at Lincoln. The circumstances of
the case were peculiar. The petition had been filed, and
the proceedings opened in the district court at Leeds. An
application was shortly afterwards made to Mr. Commis-
sioner False (in the absence of thu senior commissioner, who
is empowered by the Consolidation Act to entertain these
applications), fur an order removing the proceedings to this
court, on the usual ground, that the majority in number
and value of the creditors resided in London. The order
for removal was made; but w • afterwards set aside on
being brought before the senior commissioner for confir-
mation. Thereupon an appeal was made to the Lords Jus-
tices, who affirmed the decision of Mr. Commissioner Fent+,
and reversed that of the senior commissioner.
This was the lest examination meeting. At the meeting
for choice of assignees, His Honour refused to sign the
choice paper, stating that the decision of the Lords Jus-
tices was a sufficient confirmation of the choice, and that he
had nothing to do with it.
Mr. Goddard, who represented the assignees, said that
as the accounts had not been filed, the bankrupt could not
pass ; and he was instructed to examine him as to some
property which he had not given up to the assignees.
Mr. Linklater (for the bankrupt.)—l am told that your
Honour has already decided in this case that the present
solicitor, Mr. Goddard, is the solicitor to the assignees,
although the confirmation has not been made by your
Honour.

The Commissioner—l hive nothing to do with it.
Mr. Linklater—Wdl your Honour not give any direc-
tions ?

The Commissioner—Not a bit. The superior court has
said that he shall be assignee.
Mr. Liniclater—Your Honour observes the terms of the
order are, that the parties already named to he assignees
should not be removed, but by your Honour's directions.
Mr. Goddard—That is a sufficient direction.

Mr. Linklater—We were ouly desirous of obtaining your
Honour's directions.

The bankrupt was examined and stated that in August,
1832, he had stock in trade worth about 1.0001., also furni-
tare of the value of 501., and 2001. in book debts. He had
no property at Bradford, in Yorkshire, except a debt of 1501.
owing to him by Mrs. Cross' which had been reduced to
that sum from 3251.; since January, 1851. Ile took back
some goods from Mrs. Cross about August, 1852, to his own
shop at Lincoln. Ile had three sales of stock at Bradford
between August and November, 1832, which produced
1801. clear of expenses.
Mr. Linklater asked for an adjournment of six weeks, the
bankrupt not having had time to prepare his accounts. It
was quite clear he could not do so while the question was
under discuuion where the fiat should be worked ; for until
the assignees were appointed, he could not tell from what
period he should be required to commence his accounts.
An adjournment until the 9th of May was ordered, at
the expense of the estate.
Mr. Linklater asked for an allowance for the support of
the bankrupt and his family. The order of the court above
already provided for his necessary travelling expenses. His
debts were 1,4001. or 1,5001.; the assets were large, and, at
cost price, would have yielded nearly 20s. in the pound.
The Corsmissioner—Hu he had any allowance ?
Mr. Bell (the official assignee) said that the official as-
signee at Leeds had charged 31. a week for his allowance.
The whole amount of the debts collected in the country had
been expended down at Leeds, and the official assignee
brought in the estate debtor.
Mr. Goddard objected to any allowance. The bankrupt
had had a considerable sum already.
liis Honour granted 21. a week for six weeks.
BMOCS Mt. COUNIMIONIS HOLIWYD.
IN as PLlMMlB..—Extureivz FAILIJAN IN THI