The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-06 00:00:00

ROLL'S COURT.-(THIS DAY

HICKS 4). HEAT.
The present proceeding in this case arose out of an
inquiry before the Master as to whether a Mr. Horn-
fray had any lien on the deeds in his possession, for
certain costs which had been incurred.
The MASTER reported that he had none.
It appeared that the estates in question in the cause
belonged to a Mr. Keat, who died intestate, leaving a
widow and a son. The widow was entitled to a third
of the property, and she died, having made a will by
which she appointed the plaintiff in the cause executor.
The defendant to the original suit, Mr. Ebenezer Keat,
became the administrator of his father, the intestate, and
the suit was instituted for the purpose of realising to
the estate of Mrs. Keat, her share of the property of her
deceased husband. Part of the property consisted of
leasehold ; a considerable portion of it was sold before
the institution of the suit, and Mr. Hick., the plaintiff,
being apprehensive that he might have a difficulty in re-
covering the assets of the testatrix, took security for a
partion. Mr. Homfray was the Solicitor of Ebenezer
Keat, and as such became possessed of several
of the title deeds belonging to the leaseholds. Ebe-
nezer Keat subsequently became bankrupt, and
application having been made by the solicitor of Hicks
to Mr. Homfray for the deeds in his possession, he
claimed a lien on them for his bill of costs.
Mr. Kindersley and Mr. Keene appeared in support
of the exceptions ; and Mr. Pemberton appeared for
the plaintiff in support of the Master's Report.
At the conclusion of the argument yesterday, the
MASTER of the ROLLS stated that, although Mr. Hom-
iny might have a lien upon the deeds in one sense, yet
the lien of the solicitor was a lien which could not inter-
fere with the equity between the parties, and could '
only be a lien on the interest of the person by whom he
was employed. There bad been a deposit of some of the
documents for the purpose of securing that which plain-
tiff had a right to recover, and there had been a deposit
made with the concurrence, and through the agency of
Mr. Homfray, and without his making at the time
any observation whatever as to any right he might have,
in his character as solicitor, from the person making the
deposit. It was not material to enter into the ques-
tion of the actual value of the deeds ; they showed there
was no claim as against the property in respect of the
transactions that took place ; and that was material evi-
dence for the person who wished to make the security
available. His Lordship was therefore of opinion, that
with respect to the documents that related to the Vere-
street and Brook—treet property, Mr. Homfray, as
against the plaintiff, had no claim whatever. With re-
spect to another portion of the property, called the
Maida Hill property, the plaintiff appeared to have no
interest in that whatever. It was disposed of before
the suit was instituted, and one document relating to it
was not delivered up. That document was not stated
in the schedule to the answer, and never appeared as
a document in the possession of Mr. Homfray
till the state of facts were in the Master's office. No
distinction was made in the Master's office between
that document and the rest, but Mr. Homfray made
a general claim upon the whole. The plaintiff ap-
peared to have no interest or lien on that document,
but whether Mr. Homfray had a lien on it with refe-
rence to the assignees of Mr. Ebenezer Keat was an-
other and a very different question. The deposit made
with Mr. Hicks was for securing to him the payment
of that share of the property of the intestate, which he
was entitled to. It did not appear whether the pro-
perty, the deeds of which were so deposited, was of
greater or less value than the sums becoming due to
Mr. Hicks. If the property was of greater value, then
there was a surplus that might have belonged to Ebe-
nezer Keut if he had not become a bankrupt, but which
would now belong to his assignees. On that interest it
appeared to his Lordship, Mr. Homfray might have a
lien, but he had not a right to hold the deeds so as to
prevent Hicks availing himself of his security, by selling
the property, although ho might have a right to the
produce of the property in consequence of his lien on
the deed, as against Ebenezer Keat. In that
state of things, though his Lordship thought the plain-
tiff was quite right, and that there was no lien against
him, yet he was not sure the Master's report was right
in saying Mr. Homfray had no lien at all. That was
his opinion, but he was rather doubtful as to the species
of order he ought to make.
His LORDSHIP, in coming into Court this morning,
stated that he had considered the case,and being of opinion
the Master's report was substantially right, if he made the
strict order, the exceptions would have been overruled ;
but he thought in confirming the report he ought to provide
for Mr. Homfray having an opportunity of putting in
any claim by which he was entitled to the bankrupt's
share of the purchase-money.
The exceptions k ere therefore overruled and the
report confirmed, without prejudice to any claim Mr.
Homfray might have upon the interest of the bankrupt
or his assignees in the proceeds of the estate when
sold.