The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-25 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 24.
LLOYD V. WEST.—JUDGMENT.
Tile LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment this morning
in this case, which was argued before his Lordship some
time since. His Lordship said that in this case the will
had been filed by Richard Lloyd against the personal re-
presentative of Martin Lloyd, who had obtained the as-
signment of a mortgage, and the object of the bill was
to redeem that mortgage. The principal discussion on
the question was with respect to a matter of fact as to
whether the plaintiff had made out his title as heir-at-
law of Martin Lloyd. It was contended under the cir-
cumstances of the case that it was proper the de-
fendant should have the power of taking the opi-
nion of a jury in a Court of Law—that he should
contest the question in a Court of Law. With re-
spect to the first question, the pedigree of the
plaintiff, he claimed under Richard Lloyd, who mar-
ried Ann Lloyd at Chesterton. The ascending line
from Martin Lloyd, appeared to his Lordship to be
Clearly established ; the only point with respect to that
line was, whether Samuel -Lloyd. the father of the in-
testate Samuel, the brother of William, was the son of
William Lloyd of Chesterton. William Lloyd married
Hannah Ingram, and it appeared to his Lordship, that
there was sufficient evidence in the case to show
that William and Samuel were the sons of Wil-
liam Lloyd, who married Hannah Ingrain. If
anything were wanting to prove that, it was
confirmed by the documents that had been brought
forward in the case ; he therefore thought it was clear
that the case had been made out in that respect, and
that there was no necessity to resort to any of the evi-
denCe which had occasioned so much controversy at the
bar, such as the wills, and sonic of the written docu•
ments. With respect to the descending line that was
more complicated ; his Lordship, after going at some
conaiderable length into the evidence with respect to that
line, stated his opinion clearly to be that both the as-
cending and descending lines were clearly proved by the
documentary evidence that had been produced, and that
there was no necessity whatever to resort, as had been
ecsntended at the Bar, to the parole evidence. But,
looking at the parole evidence, the case was strengthened,
unless the witnesses had perjured themselves. It had,
however, been said, that evidence had been given which
opposed the parole evidence ; the Court had carefully
considered that evideuce, and had come to a different
result. On the whole, therefore, his Lordship was satis-
fied that the pedigree of the plaintiff had been clearly
made out • and established. But then it was said
the dei'endaut . was entitled to contest the claim
of the plaintiff at law. Now, who was the de-

fendant -Why, be was one of the personal
- represe.itatives of the intestate, there was the mortgage
outstanding, he knew of the claim of the present plain-
; tiff, and knowing it he obtained an assignment of the
mortgage. He said he did not do it to impede the claim,
hut be knew of the claim, and,:he obtained an assign-
ment of the mortgage, which had the effect of impeding
it. After he obtained the assignment, he gave notice to
the tenants, who paid their rents to him because he had
obtained possession of the mortgage. In his answer the
defendant stated that he claimed the possession not as mort-
gagee, but as heir-apparent at law of the intestate; but
he had given no evidence of the truth of that assertion.
Such being the case, his Lordship could only con-
sider him in the light of a mortgagee, and as
such he could. ha\ no right to. have a .trial at
law. In such a case I,s the present the Court would not
be justified in granting such a trial before the decree had
been pronounced for the redemption of the mortgage;
the adoption of such a course would, in his Lordship's
opinion, be a most improper exercise of the authority of
the Court, and would 'show a bad discretion on the part
of the Judge who presided in it, and in addition to that
it would create great expense. Such being the opinion
of the Court what would be the situation of the defen-
dant ? His right, if he was entitled to a trial at law,
"would not be bound by the Court decreeing the redemp-
tion of the mortgage; that was all it would decide in the
present instance. The defendant.by that decree would
have his principal and interest, repaid, and after that had
been done, he Would still be in a situation to contest the
claim of the plaintiff. The defenditnt might, if he had
chosen, have had this question first decided at law, but
the pedigree of the plaintiff having been established, this
Court could not allow the defendant to have a trial at
law before pronouncing a decree for the redemption of
the mortgage. His Lordship must therefore pronounce
that decree.
The COURT, after disposing of a few unimportant
lunatic petitions, proceeded with the further arguments
On the part-heard appeals of Blundell v. Gladstone,
Blundell v. Stoner, and Blundell v. Blundell, which occu-
pied his Lordship the remainder of the day.