The Express.
London, England, 1851-11-26 00:00:00

iria)33 intelligence.

EQUITY COURTS.—YrarzaDAT.
lizrosa Till lava Jumen or MyrAi.
Tort •. STEPIIRNSoN.-01WIAN V. it.Zlvlll.
PRI.I.I* v. WATIIIIN.

Their lordships gave judgment upon these eases, in which
the principal question was, whether the lien of a solicitor
upon the papers of his client was or not entitled to a
priority over equitable charges upon the property of which
the papers were title deeds, created prior to the deposit of
the paper..
I Their lordships held that the right of lien arose entirely
out of the relation of solicitor and client, and would only
place the solicitor in the mute situation in point of interest
as to the property, to which the papers related, u the
client himself stood at the date of the deposit. The effect
was that the solicitor's lien was postponed to the prior equi-
table charges.
IN THE DIATTKE OF THE JOINT-STOCK COMMA:CID&
WINDING-Dr ACTS AND OF THI lIIriZIAL SALT AND
ALKALI C

This was an appeal from a decision made on the 18th
inst. by Vice-Chancellor Parker. It appeared that in the
process of winding up the above company an order had
been made by Master Tinney whereby the official manager
of the company was ordered to attend him privately for tho
purpose of fixing a reserved bidding upon the
sale of the works of the company without notice to the re-
spondent, who was a contributory, and whereby the re-
spondent was excluded from attending before him upon the
fixing of such reserved bidding. The ground for exclud-
ing the respondent was supposed to be that he employed a
solicitor who hnd another client who was desirous to pur-
chase the property. The Vice-Chancellor had reversed the
order of the Master, holding that by the 38th section of the
Winding-up Act (11 &12 Vie., e. 4.5) the Master was de-
prived of all discretion as to the attendance of particular
contributories in the course of proceedings before him, but
that every contributory was entitled to attend at any such
proceedings.
Mr. Melina and Mr. C. L. Webb appeared for the Appel.
taut, the official manager in support of the Master's order.
Lord Justice Knight Bruce said hi. impression was that
the decision of the court was required, not only on behalf
of the contributories named in tho notice of motion, but

also to answer the purposes of a party who acted by the
same solicitor as the contributories, and who had an ad-

verse interest to that of the creditors and of the share-
holders. If it were open to hint to act upon the impres-
sion formed by him upon the materials before him, he
should be inclined to support the Master's order, for the
order appeared to meet the substantial justice of the case.
Upon tho materials b, fore him he was not, however, at
liberty technically and in form to sustain the Muster's
order. lie could not interfere with the Vice-Chancellor's
order.

Lord Cranworth concurred in the opinion of his learned
brother, that the Master had no discretion under the sta-
tute. He could not see that there was anything behind ;
but, if there was, the statute did not leave him at lihcrty
to act. He did not, however, see any grounds for reluct-
ance in affirming the Vice-Chancellor's order—costs of all
parties out of the estate.

&Tram a tipcoi.O.lpx. mamas no Loa* Caws=Laos.
oaovis O. BASTARD.—JCDOYENT.

This appeal from a decree O 1 the late Vice-Chancellor
Knight Bruce was argued before his lordship on Saturday
last, and reported in the Express of Monday. It will be
recollected that the defendant, the purchaser of an estate
from the plaintiff., complained of the Vice-Chanellor's de-
cree, making him pay the costs of the suit subsequent to the
3rd of August, 18 Id, and also interest upon his purchase-
money since the 2.lth of December, 11415.
The Lord Chancellor this morning gave judgment, and
said that the appeal of the defendant asked the reversal of
the decree of the court below, fixing him with a portion of
the costs of the suit, and that the bid might be dismissed
with costs. It appeared that the defendant entered into the
contract sought to he enforced by the present bill, to pur-
chase an estate from the plaintiffs, who were tke devisees
for sale under a will. This agreement was dated Juty 1844,
and the purchase was to be completed iu the following De-
cember. By the will in question the heir-at-law of the
testator was disinherited, and the bulk of the property be-
queathed to the medical attendant and attorney of the tes-
tator; and, upon a threat by the heir that he would do-
I putt the validity of the will, the purchaser refused to com-
plete his contract until the will had been established against
the heir. The bill was then filed for specific performance,
and an action at law afterwards brought by the heir to
impeach the will, but without success. Upon a reference to
the Muter fur that purpose, ho foetid that the plaintiffs
had shown a good title before the filing of the bill, but,
upon an appeal to Lord Cottenham, his lordship thought
that there were circumstances attending the making of the
will sufficiently suspicious to entitle the purchaser to have
the will established against the heir. The ease accord-
ingly stood over for that purpose, and an issue was tried
at law between the devisees and the heir, which again re-
sulted in a verdict in favour of the validity of the will. The
question raised by the present appeal was which of the two
partho' vendors or purchaser, were to bear the costs of the
suit? The Vice-Chancellor was of opinion that the pur-
chaser was entitled to have the benefit of the first action
brought by the heir to test the will, and ordered the suit to
stand over until after the trial. The verdict, however, being
in favour of the will his honour thought that the purchaser
ought to have then accepted the title, and directed him to
pay all the costs of the suit subsequent to that period—
comely, the 3rd of August, 1848. Thecaae then came before
Lord Cottenham, sod it was what took place before him that
gave rise to the present apecal. That learued judge ex-
pressed an opinion, upon the authority of the case of
"(}rain tr. Pulsford " (2 Bea.), that the purchaser was en-
titled to have the will established against the heir. Now,
that judgment was must important, for if it were neces-
sary to file a bill to establish a will upon the mere notice of
an heir that he intended to oppose it, it would open the door
to great extortion. lie (the Lord Chancellor) could nut
subscribe to such a doctrine, nor could he entirely
agree with the inference drawn by Lord Cottenham
from the case of "Green e. Puhford. ' "In his (the
Lord Chancellor's) opinion, something more than a mere
notice by a disappointed heir of a threatened oppo-
sition to a will was requisite before a party should be
compelled to institute a suit to establish such will. In the
Fitment case nothing but the statement that the property
had been left to the attorney and medical attendant of the
testator had been suggested as a ground for impeaching the
will, and the question was, whether the costs of proving the
poundlessuess of such a charge of undue influence was to be
borne by the plaintiffs, who were the successful parties. He
was of opinion that the rule of this court was, that an un-
successful party should pay the costs is every instance
except where he brought himself within an exception ; and
this was only agreeing with what Lord Eldon laid dowa in
the case of " Vancouver e. Bliss" II Vesey). Entirely co-
inciding, therefore, with the Vice-Chancellor, fin thinking
that after the first trial at law the purchaser ought to have
been satisfied with the title, the decree of the Vice-Chan-
cellor, ordering him to pay the coats since that time, mast
be airmed. In addition, the Hue drawn by him of the
3rd August, 1845, for such:payment, was most favourable to
the purchaser. The direction for the payment of 41. per
cent. interest on the purchase-money since the time that the
contract ought to nave been completed was also correct, and
the whole appeal must be dismissed with costs.
Ix xi BLITZ/4 PLYMOUTH, AND DIITONTOIT RAILWAY
COXFAXY a matt PRAYS..

.
This was an appeal from • decision under the Winding.
up Act. When the case was called on, the official ma-
nager did not appear to prosecute the appeal. His lord-
ship, therefore, dismissed the appeal, with costa—if the
estate should be sufficient to be paid therefrom; but, if
otherwise, to be paid by the official manager personally.
A similar result from the same cause followed in the
cases " Ex parte Force and Drake," appeals from decisions
under the winding up of the affairs of this company.
His lordship will not sit again till Monday.

hymn ros Muria as Roux
IN to ran CAMERON'S COALIMI.OOII STIAM COAL AND
Swimsar, AND LOUOIIOI RAILWAY COMPANY.—Pnyt-
?ION run WINDING OP.
This was a petition from several of the shareholders in
this company that it be brought under the operation at the
Winding-up Act.
Mr. Bounden Palmer, who appeared for the petitioners.
stated that the company was formed in November, MO,
the capital was to be 200,0001., divided into 20,000 shares of
101. each, and the object of the company was to work cer-
tain mines and collieries which were to be leased of a per-
son armed Cameos. and P. to make • railway between
Laugher aid Swamis. whale of the capital had been
paid up, and the sempury bad worked the mines and
me& a parties af the rail , bat the bonuses lad been
1 ramie Ma sat of ptlrlissent bad been obtained for
=AY. the
hadig Lawny
aama tat 414,
toa branch to L
that rosier ae
;
=bat loiraPeEszrat set tbe lame was altered. Ac-
One heel been t against the esaimay, sad indir-
mega gleamed • and Mr. Wettriagball, one of the pen-
tium.., red a dierebolder, lad • willaprevarate7 to the
• et eassadir. sereed:upsa lie by Bow, a
judgment medhoe, he 2541. L. 21., similar notices by
Mks areliten for other sums, smonatiag is the aggregate
to IS3I. bk. Other petitioners, Mr. Pitched Homy and
Ms. Canes, also shareholders and petitioners, had had
dailse sedan served upon them, the respective sums
bug 1,01141. sod 3,1851., and the shareholders in question
had perm& entices as the eampany. It also appeared
that the osay was ao lisps earrytag ea business., and
that their at their aim bad been &strained.
Mr. MMeMen, who emron, tho bolder
of 11,010 aberell, ar mistedbe Mr. dm panCeme granting of the peti-
tion, an der rimedgaM
dot TU. Maeda, Irk had retort to
great immt that negettilises wore going on between
the dieselme and know thamholders by which they might
oblaao vie, that then had bees a meeting at the Leaden
Ts en the 7th, inst., at which it was unanimously re-
solved tfot It was not desirable to wind up the company ;
also tbeg the railway was nearly completed, and that when
it was, and the weeks were in operation, they would be
"2,,r5,„81.1.7 , etre appeared for newel other sheen.
holders, Memel en the rams side.
The Mater of the Rolla granted an order for winding-up,
the order not to apply to the railway company.
Barone YwnCnApos..-
CALDWILL IP. Vltalinni &taw

-Paciretten.
This was an application for an intimation to rattails Ver-
ball die owner, and Swill; the eyes* el vowel called
Vet-
the OlaaMeellhecht. treat as
fiaissiskii within the
Vohs el Omit Braids, or the esee eat ohm thereat, the
finelAlaad3aaw Low., as way mile es ter the
s et worth merely einem* theeelkewa.
muts turd with rash ono et prerelisa midi-
' oat the license of the plaintiff.