The Express.
London, England, 1867-01-31 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

(THIS DAY.)

EQUITY COURT.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Molina)
bAILING e. HAREM—JUDGMENT.
The plaintiffs in this case were the well known firm of
Baring Brothers, of London, and they filed their bill
against the Marine Insurance Company and the repre-
sentatives of George Wright and Company, of Liverpool,
to establish a lien upon a certain vessel mated the Edward
Cardwell, of 1,250 tons. In the early part of 1864 Peter
Mitchell, a shipbuilder, of Miramichi, New Brunswick,
applied to the plaintiffs through his agents, George
Wright and Company, for an advance of 5,0001. upon
the security of certain ships and deals about to be con-
signed by Mr. Mitchell to his agents for sale, the applica-
tion being in the following terms :—'• Herein we enclose a
letter from the Hon. Peter Mitchell, Miramichi, request-
ing you to open a credit to the extent of 11,0001. in our
favour, to be drawn upon in bills at four months from time
to time as we may require them. We promise and under-
take
to place you in funds to restore such bills at their
maturity, and of the proceeds of Isles of ships and deals
coming to us from the said gentleman." A memorandum
of the ships in course of construction by Peter Mitchell
Was produced, and the plaintiffs agreed to make the ad-
vance, and Wright and Co. drew in July four bills at four
months date, two for Ltilitif., and two for I,OOW. each,
which the plaintiffs accepted, and the bills were nego-
tiated. In October, I:464,Wright and Company stopped pay-
ment. Before the Acceptances arrived at maturity, namely
in August, IM4. George Wright and Company
obtained from the Marine Insurance Company an advance
of 5,000/. for three •montha upon the Edward Cardwell,
and executed a bill of sale in their favour. In October,
Its.i4, the plaintiffs having discovered the mortgage tiled
this bill and obtained an injunction to restrain the
ti-Ifeadanto from dealing with the ship, contending that
the pow.? siven to Wright and Company to sell gave
no authority to MOrir•gle- Itn4 Ass the truaferee's
name being in blank, the gill of sale v 7.1.: cold;
The cane was fully argued in December last, 'LE. Bailey,
and Mr. Cotton appearing for the plaintiffs; Mr.
well, for Wright and Co.: and Mr. Glasse and Mr. Drum,
for the Marine Insurance Company.
The Vice-Chancellor now gave judgment. He was of
opinion that the memorandum produced to Messrs. Raring
was merely introduced to show that Mr. Peter Mitchell was
about to consign property sufficient to meet the bills at
maturity and did not and was not intended to constitute
a lien upon any property whatever. Messrs. Baring Bro-
thers hail good ground to complain of the concealment
of the fact that at the very time that these transactions
I took place Peter Mitchell was' indebted to Wright and Co.
more then 40,000/., for no doubt had th'.t been disclosed
they would not have given their acceptances. Still all
' the correspondence showed was that out of the property
to be consigned to Wright and Co., Messrs. Baring were
to receive theamount of their bills, and the plaintiffs had
failed to :establish their right to any lien or charge upon
the shirrs. The bill therefore must be dismissed, with ousts
as against the Marine Insurance Company, and without
costs as against the other defendants.