The Sun.
London, England, 1852-04-19 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.--(THIS DAY.)

FORD V. STUART.
k this suit the defendant, Sir Simeon Stuart, in 1832,
borrowed the sum of 8,000/. from Sir C. Saxton, and by
11 deed executed on the 23d of January in the same year,
he made a settlement of certain property in consideration
of that sum; the defendant subsequently burrowed
further sums from other parties, and mortgaged the
tame property for the repayment of them, and the ques-
"on was, whether the deed of the 23d of January, 1852,
Was valid.
Horroun, in giving judgment this morning, de-
cided that it was valid, and dismissed the bill.
"'ELL V. LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY
COMPANY.
In this case, the plaintiff, who is the public officer of
the National and Provincial Bank of England, sought to
14ake the London and North-Western Railway Com-
. pony liable for certain sums which they had paid over
certain
parties on account of Mr. Thomas Burton, A
contractor, who, it was contended, had previously eke-
' lat2d an assignment of all sums which might become due
,° 'aim, in favour of the Bank. It appeared that on the
z2lll December, 1846, Mr. Burton contracted to construct
certain portions of the line from Rugby to Peterborough,
thand Stamford, and in the month of March, 1847, applied to
e National and Provincial Bank to advance him a con-
rerable sum of money to carry on his works. The
hi : made him a considerable advance and received
r,,,„°1 him at the same time an order on the railway com-
f"Y to pay over to them all sums which might become
.',1,14e to Mr. Burton on account of his contract: Mr.
aurton some time after fell into difficulties and his affairs
aiseditotros,th
were put into the hands of assignees for the benefit of
and the railway company made several
. payments the insolvent, fo n account of the eontract entered into
watch it was now sought to make
the company habit:
Hortona, in giving - d
cue
wereiuhgment, said that the two
questions in the
ether an assignment had
been executed by Mr. Burton
and whether the
raii_to
ethe National Bank of
England,
9f.the
such assignment. After goi:gagroonmphatni?, had notice of
case, his Honour said that rhea'gn le
in his opinion,
ot,
sufficient evidence advanced byplaintiffs to support
-11 do thertiore,
either of these propositions, and he si,
dismiss the bill, but without Costs.

14 4
'ti

!

SO'

'

~f r

ie
11'
13,

INk4al
T f4X

VICE-CHANCERY.—(T HIS DA-i,
(Before Vice-Chancellor Pannara)
SHARP V. LAING.
This was an application for an injunction,. pr,a,biting
the sale of a cargo of salt now on its way to
Calcutta,
"II
Which it was alleged on behalf of the plaintiff had b
Shipped by the agent without due authority.ds_ri . •
Ris HONOUR now
plication.
gave judgment,dismissing the sp,
IN RE THE MIDLAND UNION, BURTON•UPON-TRENT,
E ASHEY.D-LA-ZOIICH, AND LEICESTER RAILWAY
COMPANY, EX PARTE HILL.
This was a motion on behalf of Mrs. Hill, the adminis-
' tratrix of John George Norbury, deceased, for an order
he Master Tioney to review his decision, whereby
-"II had placed the name of Mrs. Hill, as the administra-
- !11l of Mr. J. G. Norbury, on the list of contributors of
'.149 above company. From the statement of counsel, it
appeared that Mr. Norbury was a member of the prow-
atonal and managing committees, and consented to take
h. certain number of shares, but that none were 'ever
allotted to him; that he bad attended several meetingsf
onthe managing committee, and in particular one on
e
29th of October, 1845, at which the report of the
471Pituy's engineer had been received, and ordered to
published in the daily papers. All the claims of the
‘-°ol)pany had been satisfied with the exception of that
of.
re Ur. Baxter, who, at the request of the provisional
enictors, had discharged the claim of the company's
neers.
• Itse gortoun gave judgment, confirming the decision
th Master, and dismissing the application.

v,~~~~

0b,,,,i i
~QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
1411 ;1 pi atings in Banco, before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE,
.441.1;1„ ' till% aUStiO9 WIGHTHAN, Mr. Justice ERLE, and Mr.
t 1:".. ' - laltatice CROXPTON.)
1.4 ~ i, prii_. ARNOTT V. HOLDER.
44 ' 4.148 wasaction upon two bonds, one for 3001. and
I'3l I'l,, the oth an - •the defendant had pleaded,
413,,414, ark, ~er for 150/., to which
i"I '''. '"' "ue atatute of limitations; and secondly, bankruptcy.
'IN 4 1 At the trial before th Lord Chief Justice in London,
'llAut-'' 114" term, a Verdict wase
returned for the plaintiff, with
04 , , re to the defendant to move the full court for pertnia.
410 , ' 42011 to the
a nenseit. idr. Knowles, Q.C., accordingly
' -"!? Moved and obtained a. rule to show cause upon a
P°ll2t of a purely technical character, which did not pre-
.
• ' "tit illffieleat public interest to justify a detailed report.
Tlii PARL V. SKINNER.
disturbing the
~ . „, a was an action on the case for _
~11,..11ritira ri2 t f
utaiaiz 3 ti, ''
andh- % w
verdictaY wrheitcuhrnwe
...4 Sergeant to, -,, _ GLARE_ now Dic!ir _, 1 .
1
•"? 1141" 103 Z A new tfpl. 1491114 0
Kui
ed for a rule
adatotrrietdheatotabieritlieffs.t pa-
_
.....

SaN