The Express.
London, England, 1848-11-17 00:00:00

Before the

of England.

THE V. MARTIN.

—Tug COURT OP EQUITY WILL NOT INTERFERE TO lie
STRAIN AN ACTION AT LAW TOR WORE. AND LABOUR
DONE, ON THE O•OUND THAT THE ACCOUNTS ARE.
CATE.—Thie was a motion on behalf of the South E Littera
Railway Company, for an injunction to restrain the defend-
ants, hewn. Martin and Fox, engine( rlag surveyors sad
indigents, front proceeding with an action at law, cam.
minted against the plaintiffs under the following chi:insi-
stences : The action was brought in Nov., 1847, to recover
a sum of nearly 7,0001., being a balance alleged to be owing
to the defendan's for wore and labour done by them for the
company. I. May last the company filed this bill to restrain
the action. The answen were put in, and in Jane the plaice
tiffs moved that the defendants might be ordered to deposit
the various books, documents, plans, estimates, cod other pa-
pers relating to the demand made by them, which were sub-
sequently investigated by the plaintiff.. The bill charged
that the can could not be tried at law, oz. the ground
of the number of persons employed as assist-
ants in making the surveys, and the difficulty of as-
certaining except in a Court of Equity, whether all the
items In the defendants,' accounts were comet. The bit
also charged that the plaintiffs could not successfully resist
eons pans of the defendants' claim without a discovery o
the circumstances alleged in the bill, but that such discovery
would enable them succenfully to resist the same. For the
defendants it was contended that the charge made by them
was the proper subject sf an action at law. it would be
very simple for the parties to call engineers and other per-
sons to show the reaeonablenees of the charges made, and it
was not necessary in an action brought by • luiider, a
coachmaker, or other tradesman, to call every workman or
subordinate to show how all the parts composing the gene-
ral charge were made up. The object of the pl:intiffe was
merely to create delay and prevent the defendants from
obtaining their just demands.—The Vice-Chancellor said be
thought this was not a case in which a court of equity ought
to interfere. His opinion was that it was merely the last
attempt on the part of :he plaintiffs to escape the demands
of plain justice. It appeared from the answers ot the de-
fendants that after no less than twenty-six applications made
by the defendants for payment of their bill an appoint-
ment was made by the via-chairman of the company for the
defendants to attend, in order that a settlement might be
come to. This appointment was not kept. The defendants
still exhibited the greatest forbearance, but as no suirfarttot/
answer could be obtained from the company they at length
brought their action, in which there was nothing to be r
but whether the defendants were entitled to the amount et
their charges for work and labour done. This bill was filed
in May last, but no injunction was applied for till the 13th
of the present month. It was altogether • case of precrasti-
cation against persons who had made a fair claim at law.
In the bill a charge was contained that the plaintiffs could
not moossaffilly resist some pars of the defendants'
claim without • discovery, but that such discovery
would enable them sueoreefully to resist the same.
That allegation was tantamount to this, that If the plaintilli
had a discovery of the circumstances alleged in the bill, they
could resist the action. Now, the plaintiffs had already ob-
tained a diseovery, and therefor*, according to their own
showing, they could successfully resist the action, and ought
not to some to a court et equity to have the accounts Woe
before the master. On the facts of the case, however, which
had been made by the plaintiffs, he did not consider that this
was a fit question to be tried in equity. Suppe**, a gentle-
man living in the country were to deal with a fishmonger in
London, and have turbos, and lobsters, and oysters, and all
meaner of fish nut to him, and upon the bill being
sent in by the fishmonger, the gentleman wen
to say that all the servants of the tradesman
who had packed up the fish ought to be examined, and that
I consequently the case ought to be tried in a Court of Equity,
such a thing would of course be impossible. It was true
that upon the action in this case there might be very lengthy
evidence, and the jury might have some difficulty in
deciding upon the value of the work done, bat
still it was a question which was more proper for a jetty
than for a Court of Equity. He thought, under the cir-
cumstances, that it was a hopeless cue on the part of the
plaintiffs, In seeking the interference of this court against
jut demand at law by the defendants, and he should there-
fore refuse the injj_unction.
GOODMAN v. DE BRAVVOIR.—MOTION TO WITHDRAW
A SEPARATE. APPBARANCI ENTERRD, FOR ONE OP A COM-
MIT-TSB OP MANACIZMINT REPINIED.—It appeared in this
ease that a company called the Warwick and Worcester Rail-
way Company was formed in 1846, and the defendants, 81r
J. De Beauvoir, Mr. Fisher, and others, were appointed
the managing committee of the company, with the usual
stipulation that the majority should bind the minority.
Soon afterwards an agreement was entered into by a ma-
Orley of the committee of management, for the purpose
of effecting an amalgamation with another projected compeer
called the London and Birmingham Extension Railway, an
by that agreement the sum of 15,0001. was to be advanced to
the latter company by the Warwick and Worcester Company
out of their capital. This egnement being disapproved of
by some of the shareholders in the Warwick and Worcester
Railway Company, • bill wee filed by the plaintiff on behalf
of himself and the other shareholders against the directors,
charging mismanagement of the affairs of the company, and
asking for an injunction to restrain the performance of the
agreement. The solicitors of the company were upon this
authorised by the committee of management to defend the
suit, and appearances were entered for the defendants,
amongst whom was Mr. Fisher, on whose behalf a motion
was now made that the appearance entered in his name
might be withdrawn, on the ground that he had
given no authority to the solicitors to take that course.—
The Vice. Chancellor said there were very few rights which a
man might not, in this country, bargain away. The nine',
pie effecting this subject had been very clearly laid down by
the Lord Chancellor, in a recent case when an injunction
had been granted, to restrain a party from making any oppo-
sition to • bill in parliament. His lordship had stated hie
opinion to be, that the coast might uphold an agreement
which had been entered into by a person not to oppose • bill.
If an Individual had contracted with others that they would
take steps to defend what was done, he had bargained away
his right to defend himself separately ; and it this bill on-
tained a statement of the fact, namely, that the 15,0001. was
improperly advanced to the intended amalgamated com-
pany, and asked that the committee of management might be
made responsible, it was competent for the committee to
direct their solicitor to enter appearances for all t• e defend-
ants, and the defendant Fisher was nut at liberty to com-
plain against the consequences of that act. The motion must
therefore be refused.