The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, DEC. 19.
EX-PARTE RUSSELL, IN THE MATTER OF ROSE, A
BANKRUPT.
This was a petition to stay the certificate, on the ground that
the bankrupt had practised collusion with one Turner, .and one
Henry Ackland, in contracting the debt due to the petitioner ;
all the parties being aware that they were unequal to the pay-
ment of the same, in amount 1201.

The Lonn CHANCELLOR could not understand to what pur-
pose this petition was now brought on. The question for his
Lordship, in dealing with the certificate which lay before him
for signature, was, whether or not, since the commission of
bankrupt had issued, the defendant had complied fully with the
statutes of bankruptcy. The bankrupt might have behaved
very improperly in contracting this debt, or he might not ; the
petitioner might have been treated very ill by the bankrupt, or
he might have been very foolish and incautious in allowing
such parties to contract such a debt : but unless there was some
complaint of non-compliance with the laws of bankruptcy (and
there was nothing of the kind alleged), the petition must be
discharged.

LLOYD AND OTHERS V. SIR H. ST. PAUL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that in this case, which was
a motion to restrain the defendants from working coal-mines
belonging to the Wednesbury-hall estate, in Staffordshire,
claimed as a right reserved for the plaintiffs in the conveyance
in 1708, and also to require Mr. Vernon to produce the deed of
conveyance and others which he held in trust. It would be re-
collected that he had advised the question on the injunction to
be postponed until it should be argued and seen whether or not
the plaintiffs had a right to the production and inspection of the
deeds. He desired to be clearly understood that in his opinion
the hearing and determining this first question would leave the'
question as to the injunction entirely free and unprejudiced.
The question before the Court was to he considered—first, with
respect to the principles which respected the rights of Sir H. St.
Paul and his family; 2dly, according to the principles which
respected the lessees under him, and the property which they
so held ; and whether, in case of the right claimed by the plain-
tiff being established, the Court would feel inclined, after what
those lessees had been allowed to do, to proceed upon a short
mode to restore the plaintiff to his right, and thereby work con-
siderable injury, if not injustice, to those lessees. The imme-
diate question of to-day, however, was confined to the produc-
tion, or not producing, of the deeds by Mr. Vernon. When
that question should be determined, the Court would be better
able to consider and decide the other questions pending on it.
Confining himself, then, strictly to that one question, he would
only state in passing, that by the rule in the case of Norway and
Rowe, the present case did not fall within the prohibition there
laid down, of using affidavits in support of title; because the ori-
ginal title of the defendants was not asserted; it was declared by
himself to be unknown ; and the facts could not be understood
until the deeds should be produced, to which the plaintiffappealed
to certify all the titles comprised under them. (His Lordship
then recited the main facts relating to the cause from the first
deed of conveyance, down to the present suit.) Upon all the
sales and conveyances, the plaintiffs alleged that the property
of the coals and minerals had been reserved for them, with the
right of digging and searching for them upon the payment of
certain rates of compensation, agreed upon and expressed in
the deeds, as would appear whenever the deeds should be pro-
duced. In their answer to the amended bill, Sir H. St. Paul
and his wife denied that they, or either of them, have in their
possession or power any such deeds, papers, or writings, as
were mentioned in the bill. They admitted the working of
coal mines, lime-stone, &c. upon the estate,which they claimed
as part of their possession. His Lordship could scarcely un-
derstand the answer, where it seemed to state that the custom
of the country was such as to make void reservations of coal
and minerals, in conveyances of the land. They stated a clear
series of sets of ownership to prove their right to the lands,
which must be kept in contradistinction from the rights of the
mines under them. He said it with all pn?per respect for Sir
H. St. Paul, but his answer amounted to just nothing at all,
as it regarded this point of the case, which was, whether or not
there had been a reservation of coals or minerals,' or not. The
answer averred that he had no deeds in his possession, but did
not give the Court the least information of the import of the
statement in the amended bill, nor inform the Court how they
might get at the contents of the deeds,which could alone enable
the Court to decide. Mr. Vernon said in his answer, that he
had some deeds in his possession, but he did not think proper
to look into them, and could therefore set forth no information
which could be useful to the cause. That was the whole im-
port of the original answer; one of them could not, and the
other would not, look at the deeds. His Lordship would not
deny but that with respect to some of the lands, such conduct
might probably be proved as would amount to a waver or ces-
sion of the reserved right : in others, the defendants might have
no proof that they had acquired such a title. All this must
depend upon the contents of the deeds, and the conduct of
the parties subsequently. Mr. Vernon had declared that his
trust was at an end, butt that he held the deeds. If his trust had
not substantially ceased, still he could be no party in these pro-
ceedings to the extent of refusing all information of the con-
tents of the deeds, so long as others, besides the objects of
his trust, claimed to hold something under the deeds in his
possession ; but being on his own acknowledgment denuded of
his trust in substance, he still was not far divested, while he re-
tained the deeds, but that those parties might call on him to
surrenders deed upon which they grounded their titles of reser-
vation. His Lordship had considerable experience of cases of
coal mines, having much intimate knowledge of the state of
property in one of the principal coal counties.—He admitted
that there might have been great folly, in cases of rights re-
served, in not having a duplicate of the original conveyance exe-
cuted, considering all the accidents to which the succession of
property was subject; but that folly would not have the effect
of taking away a title which was contained in the conveyance,
because the party had still an interest in the single deed of con-
veyance ; though it was equally plain that in such cases those
from whom the reservation was withheld would be continually
busy to weaken and destroy the force of the title. He did
not apprehend that any dealings with the land could have the
effect of an ouster of the property of the mines under them.—
There might be cases in which the ouster was not effected, and
yet the conduct might have been such, that a Court of Equity
would refuse to interfere. Parties might be proved to have be-
haved so as to induce the Court to leave them to the remedy of
an action at law. The simple question was—whether or not
the parties was entitled to know the contents of the deeds ? not
for the purpose of proving their title only, but to identify the
several parcels of land which were declared by the defendants
themselves to want identification. lie was of opinion that the
deeds ought to be produced. But to take the most temperate
course, he would call on Mr. Vernon to inspect the deeds, and
insert a statement in his answer, whether or not there was any
reservation of coals and minerals in the conveyance of 1708.
It was agreed that in case the deeds contained the reserva-
tions, the plaintiffs should be furnished with copies of the pas-
sages which included them.