The Sun.
London, England, 1809-07-24 00:00:00

MOhRIS v. COLMAN.

Thii cause stood over, by order of the Court, till
.
this morning, for the purpose ofp ipg the parties
an opportunity of agreeing, if pasible, Sur reterring
the matters in dispute. The Lord Chancellor now
inqui)ed if any such agreement had been entered
into by them ?
Mr. HART, for the Defendant; said, " there had
not. • He conceived the Court had to decide upon
what had beep put•in ttaue between the parties, 'be-
fore any reference could be made to the Master."
tOURT.--" Can I decree a partnership, in OD1114;
mon forever, in such a subject-matter as Theatri-
.
?" .

.Mr. HART..." My Lord, I thought that before
any reterenCe to-the Master, the annt hid to de-
cide whether AIL Morris, a proprietor of one-fourth
could become a tenant, in common, in the
half, contrary tb the
.inclination of my client, and
contrary to the terms of the articles between them:
COURT.—" Mr. HAar, will you give in a decla-
ration of.what your client understands to be the eticat
of ,those articles ?,, I could wish the parties WOuld
agree, and.thereby get out of hot water."
Mr. IiART.—" I should be sorry to commit my

client without due consideration. I shoald be very
happy to get him out of hot water, butl might only
get bim out of that upon the gridifon." • •
CouitT.—" If you cannot agree, I nalastAmly give
my_ judgment; but I would have you 'consider,
whether your client may not, in that, case, get, if
not from hot water upon the gridiron, at least be-
tween the frying-pan and .the fire. Let this" stand..
over till Wednesday -next, to be then mentioned
among the motions."

JULY. 21.

NICHOLSON AND OTHERS V. STAPLETON.

The Plaintiffs had made an agreement with Sir
Stapleton to sell hini some land and houses,
and filed a bill for a specific,fierformance of the con-'
tract on his .part. He answered that lie was entitled'
to a building called " The Old Kitchen," which they

:itErined not to be included in the contract. He also
tiled a cross bill, calling upon then) to give-him the
Oh Kitchen, or in case this was not done, calling
upon the Court to dismiss the former bill. The
De-
tendant moreover objected that the Plaintiffs could •
not make a good title to the entir,ety Of the property,
which it appeared) had been bequeathed to theni
under a will of the late Mr. Nicholsorrin these
terms, " all my undivided moiety Atif the property
(describing it) and all my rigbt, interest, &c. there?,
ill, IP ANY." &C.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that some doubt was
thrown upon the title of the Plaintiffs to the entirety
by the singular words of-the will, and consequently
upon any title which they could give to a purchaser.
. The probability was that the title was perfeelly good,
bat, according to the pra&ice of the Court, it could
not compel the Defendant to take a title upon which
there was a doUbt prima facie. He could not,
therefore, order.the performance of the agreement.
But the Court was of_ opinion that the Defendant
could not !lave been entitled- to the Old Kitchen
.and a; nineteen-twetitietlis of the experice had been,
occasioned by. the dispute about'this Old Kitchen,
Lordship ordered that Sir M. Stapleton should
-pay the costs of the cross bill entirely, and of all
that part of
the
proceeding upon the original bill
which related to the Old Kitchen, and that the
'Plaintiffs should pay' the remaining costs of the ori-
ginal bill,