The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1808-04-30 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, LI n can% 's-1 A tr, Aram I.

Assignees of HERBERT v. Assignees ofte oaa.•
'lino was a petition oft he Asagisers of Herbert.
staling that he, ih coujiiiictiou with oue Cooke, be-
fore their several inseaveni les, purchased a ship;
that they paid equally for her, and carried on the
inahageineat of her. as cortartners ; ill*, the sale aad
reguher.were made out in the name of Cooke only.
ou which account the Assignees of Cooke would
not admit the Petitioners to any share of her. The •
Petition prayed for equitable relief, and for au
order that half her value should he paid into
Court, and the Petitioners have leave to file a• bill.
Mr. ItIoNAILD+ supported the petition, on the
ground that Cooke was only acting in trust for
Herbert's part,.au:l his na:ue being alone in the
rilister. was in consequence of a mutual agree-
ment between them; that they both paid equally
for bers and in every circuinstauce that occurred, as
to repairs. &c. they appeared as copartners ; they
were looked on by the public as the martial
owners, and it was a cube that iminediately came
uuder tale equity of the Court, for it would he a
severity indeed, if two men, purchasing an azticle,
with one of theta time active purchaser, the other
should be deprived of his share, because hi* name
was not mentioued in the bill of sale. •
Sir Sastum. RofaiLLY contended, that the peti-
tion ought to be dismissed, for, by an Act of Jamas
the First, the person whose name was in the regisiry
could only bz considered as the owner, and very
properly. for if otherwise, it would allow a person
in a stateef insolvency to have his name put into. a
number of reAisters, although not a plank in one of
the ships belonged to him, and thug to hold oat a
',taw of property, end be able to defraud the pub!ie.
If the show t.s hail not Vifficiently pmveled agitiitst
such a fraud, by making the person tainted is there-
' gistry the bona fide owner, die equity of that Court
would not protect a eenion allowing another tomake
ape of his properly to make a thew o(wealth for the .
purposes of imposition, the Conrt would let I sin
abide iny his own act, and suffer the Ines he pad
himself oceasioi.e•4. There was a decision of his
Lordship exactly in point, Nantes. r.
where he decided directly contrary to the prayer
of the teition.
Mr. Kt:Mattes in reply, said, the present ewe woo
quite different irom that of Santee q. Mined,
quoted by Sir Seinuel %Reilly. In that eerie his
lordship decided on a different ground ; Chiswell
was a Member of Parliament, and wen id u, t have
his mune in the register, because she was a contract
ship, and ao contractor could have a seat in the
House of C011113301i0 ; and his Lordship very wisely
considered him meow:bitting a fraud on the Legis-
lature of his country, and, as such, that he could Lot
l'r•ceive e uuitable assistance in that Cum t ; but the
•- ••• .ens quite ditteretit. The two batik-
car:•sing on the business of the ship.
openly and pot !y to the world, and he trusted
his Lordship would not think, that there was any
similitude between the two cases. For his owe
part, be considered them us different as any two
cases 'that could be brought into that Court. •
The Loan CaaNcELLoa observed, that the
Act of Parliament of James the First was like all
others. It was an set of public policy. It says
" at the time of taking nit a registry, the pelotas
receiving it mma swear he is ii" actual owner;' and
_aalipose it was a core between „Herber' sod Cooke,
would that Court hear Herbert, after his being
privy to that perjury ? On the 'first point of the
case, there was a doubt as to equal property. 'ft
was provedthat both gave bills to an equal amount
I fur the purchase of the ship; but surely it was not
evidence that they were to have an equal interest ;
Cooke might have given Herbert an ample reinu-
nefetion for those bills. But allowing they 'were
joint proprietors, and that, with the cons-tit of both
partite., Cooke's name alone was in the regiuutry
Cooke was, by Act of Pauliainent, obliged to snake
oath that the ship was his own, and 'that she was
British built. If this were not the case, neutrals
might become owners of Bri...s'a ships, and cleftaud
the revenue of the county. The statutes went so
far as to say, that any sale, escept by registry,
could not be lawful. They could not act in the
case of a ship, as they would in the case anti
rotate ; for suppose Herbert Lad paid the isl•ole
of the purchase miner, was actually in pass
session, and procured a policy of laser:ince, and
the ship was lost on her voyage, he could not re-
cover on the policy ; for•whrn the regi-try came to
be examined, it would be fouad he was Lot the
owner. In respect to the assignees and creditors of
Herbert; they stood exactly in the situation he
would be in ; for it' Herbert could not file a bill
'against Cooke, they could' not file one against
Cooke's assignees., for wkich reason lie would die.
• miss the Petition. '