The Sun.
London, England, 1806-08-14 00:00:00

Captain to give se&trlty to acct well during
the voyage, be consented to go on board, and the
parties were all sent to the Danish Consul, to enter
into bonds.

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF CHANCI:RY, Auc, rj.

EX I'AIITE DUlkiltALL.

This was an application for settingaside the sale of.
two pews belonging to the Bankrupt, in a Cpurch at
Warringt& .1, on the ground that the Solicitor to:
the Commission, and who himself aeled as Auc-
tioneer at the sale, had been the purehaSer. The So..
LICITOR-GEWERAL said it was *not alledged that the
property sold was of great value.- The pews in ques-
tion, however,. it might be convenient to dispose of
along with- the Petitioner's other property in the
-same placer which.. was ordered to be re-sold ; and
it was .a ',decided point, that in no' circumstances
whatever could a Solicitor become thepurchaset of
an estate which it was his duty to sell to the best'
advantagef 1-le, therefore, could not complain that
he suffered, any loss or inconvenience, in being depriV-
ed of a purchase which he 11e' et ought to have made ;
which, in.liis charaLter.of, Solicitor
.to., the Cemmis-
sion, he never :could'legally 'make ;
.and which haV,
ing made illegally, as uniting in his own person the
charaetersoiseller,auaion*,.and purchaser,it would
foliow.of course .tinit:he sUbjeEted in. the
costs of replacing. the 7Cetittoic, in the situation'in-
whieh, but for his illegal aa-ritte would have stood.
• Mr. ALDLAIDE,II. did not:opilpsp that ipart of t/ite
applicatien,.which requit4: the sale to beset aside,
`and a new sal© to-:take place. When, however, if
was considered that the-sale :had bran acquiesced in
for ten years ; nay, that the law 4y-which Solicitors
were declareci to. be .incompetent
,purchasers, of the
estates of those-for ,Wiiom they a&ed had not,been.-
-,
ascertained till the: of the,Honse.of Lords in
.
the ,case of the York Buildings Company against.
-Mae Kenzie,
.and that, even that case costs had
not beela given,
.t*Learned Counsel submitted;
'that it would be 'going too•fai 't'O'giVe a retrospe& to:
the law in this case, and to subject the purchaser to'
costs.'

The Siittcttott-GENtRar.:- observed, that in the
case alluded to, which was an. appeal from the Court
of .:Session in Scotland, the decision of the Court
below had been in favoUr of. 11,1‘Kenzie, and it
was contrary to allspraaice to give costs. to the Ap-
pellant.
The Loin CfurseztLoa said, that the judgment
in the case "of the York Buildings Company against .
M`Kentie did infinite honour to the Tribunal from
which it proceeded, and to the Judge who moved
the reversal of the decree of the Court below. That
judgment laid down a general. do6trine, Which, un-
questionably,
was of the utmost importance, that
no Solicitor. could purchase the property which he
was employed to spit. He wished it.had come be-
fore the House of Lords in such a shape as to have
enabled them. to lay down another general rule—
zhat every Solicitor, who, in such circumstances, pun.,
chased
.any property, should .be liable in the costs
arising 'from his own improper act. He was dis-
tinaly Of opinion that a general rule to this effe&
was infinitely better thanr,leaving it to the discre-
tion of any Judge. Whether the law or praaice was
clearly defined, All. persons.:aaing as Agents or
,So.
licitors must see the penalty-: under which they em-
barked in such a speculation. They would be aWare
that not the purchase alone must necessarily fall to
the ground', but costs must. follow- as a matter of
.course. They would not, therefore, speculate on the-
degree of favour with which. their case might be re-
ceived. Such a doarine, however, he could. not.
lay,down in the present case,, it not being his wish,.
nor did he think himself entitled, to give his own irp-
.pression of the rule a.retrospeaive died. He threw
out thew. observations, however, as the leaning of -
his' opinion whenever a
.case of the kind should pro-.
.perly pine before him.

In BARCLAY'S Bankruptcy.

This was an application calling on, the Assignee to
sell and slivideamong the Creditors the;moiety of a
Ship belonging to the Ban,krfjpt.,:. The Ship in ques,.
tion, it appeared, was, originally the property of the.
' Bankrupt to. the extent of three-sixths, of a person
of The name of . cl:otte ,to .the .extent- of : t wo-si it hs,
and of Gunning, one of the parties in the present ap,.
I.' •
. pication, :to.. the extent olone-sixth, hut, he, having
' aiterwards acquired' Crone's two,sixths; 'became,
along it-b'the Bankrupt, joint proprietor,: each
.o
• a .moiety.of. the,Vessel. Gunning, however, besides
' being-,proprietor of one moiety of the V6Sel, was
' also husband to ''i, in which capacity hey had ad-.
v. anced cssCti. and upwards on its account, ' For this
sum he claimed a lien on the VeSsel, in consequence
pfan agreement entered into betw.een the Proprie-
tors, by , which the Vessel was treated as a, copartnery
concern ; neither, party was allowed to. dispose of his
Share, Withont the consent of the. other, , and in case
of a determination on 1 the part of one or
:other of
them to quit the concern, then.the Vessel tole; ex-
posed to puilie sale, at SOine• convenient place in
Sunderland ; the claims on the Vessel to be first
discharged out.af the price,, and the remainder to be
divided between the parties.
This, Mr. RIPHARDS and Mr. HART submitted,
I was • such 'a coPartnery as gave to eiflier of the par-
tties who made any advance oti account of the ves-
sel a lien on it, of which he could not 'be disappoint-
ed.

The SOL/CITOR-GENERAL, :On the other hand,
maintained, that there was nothing in the agreement
which, even in ordinary cases, could take it out of
the general rule •; but, moreover, it was struck at by
Lord Liverpool's ,Aa, by which the property of the
ship Was regulated by the Register, which, it would
not be alledgcd in the 'present 'case,' contained a
clause similar TO.the..one now founded 'On.
The LORD CIIA&CELLOR considered the present a
qtiestion of very great importance; as itivolving the
consideratiori• both of the general Maritime Law
and the Bankrupt, Law of the country: The leading
principle in the Bankrupt Law of the country was
this, that no man should seem to be in possession of
what did not aerially belong to him ; and the Statute
of James even went thiS length, that if a person in
trade left his stock with another to carry on the bu-
siness, although no consideration was given to it,
such -stock became the property of him-with, %lout-
it . was left, at least in a questionwih. creditors,