The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-05 00:00:00

MORNING SUN

r
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 4.
Ilis Lordship was engaged the entire morning, up to
the time of the rising of the Court, in hearing the.argu-

ments in a bankrupt petition.
The Loan CHANCELLOR proceeded with the hearing.of
bankrupt petitions in the nature of appeals from the

Court Of Review.

IN THE MATTER OF PLU3IMER AND AN'OTIIER.'
This case came before the Court upon appeal from the
judgment of the Court of Review and Bankruptcy. The
short facts of the case appeared to be as follow :
Plummer and Wilson, who carried on partnership toge-
ther, gave, to a person named Jones a mortgage on an
estate in Jamaica, as security for their debt, and the con-
veyance in that mortgage covenanted that the parties
would pay jointly and severally. Plummer and Wilson
became bankrupt:, anti Jones sought to:prove against the
joint, as well as the separate estate, for the full amount of

hisidebt.
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that
under the circumstances of the case, Jones was only en-
titled to prove against the joint estate for his debt, but
that in case that estate was not sufficient to answer his
demand, that then he might go against th►e separate
e,tate. On the part of the respondent it was submitted
that the deed was the act of both the partners, that they
knew perfectly well what they were doing, and that by
it they were giving their creditor an advantage which he
was entitled to retain.
Upon the case coming on before the Court of Review
their Honours were divided in opinion.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, at the conclusion of the
arguments, said, that as the question was one of great
nicety, and as the Judges of the Court of Review had
differed- in their opinions, he should take time to con-
sider his judgment.- —Judgment postponed.
IN THE MATTER OF CALDECOTT, A BANKRUPT.
This case also came before the Court upon appeal
from the judgment of the Court of Review. The facts
were as follow :—The Commercial Bank of England
sought, by their manager, to prove a debt against one of
their own partners, on the authority of the 7th of George
IV.. and Ist and 2d Victoria, the provisions of both
those Acts giving managers of Joint Stock Companies
a right to sue the members of their own body for debts
due to the Company. The Court of Review decided
that he could prove, and the present case came before the
Court by way of appeal from that decision.
Mr. SWANSTON and Mr. RUSSELL, for the appellant,
contended that. according to the settled practice of the
Court, no partner could prove against another partner
until the Accounta of the partnership were wound up,
and the amcnnt of the debts ascertained; and that not
having been done in the present instance, the party was
not entitled to the benefit that had been given him by

the Court below.
Mr. RICHARDS and Mr. ANDERSON, for the respon-
dent, submitted that under the Acts of Parliament there
was a clear right given to the manager of any joint stock
company to sue any memle‘t of the company, or prove
Pgainst his estate in case he should become bankrupt.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was of opinion that the right
was c;:arly given, and ordered the decision of the Court
below to be ail:rmed, with costs.
IN THE oar vat OF BLAKE, A BANKRUPT.
This case, which was en appeal from the Court of
Review, was opened by Mr. SW7eston ; after which, the
the further arguments were adjournef! till to-morrow
(this day). •
The LORD CHANCELLOR rose shortly before 4 o'clock.
:ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 4.
MAITLAND r. BROWNRIGG.
This was a petition for payment of a portion of certain
funds paid into Court in suits now pending. Mrs. Mait-
land was, "!iy a settlement on her first marriage with Mr.
Simpson, entitled to a life interest in certain funds,
with a power to appoint to her children. On her
second marriage with Admiral Maitland her life
interest in this settlement was made the subject
of a second settlement, and in this last settlement
a covenant was entered into by Admiral Maitland
for payment of a sum of 10,00 CL, which was also to be
settled, and in which his widow was also to have a life
interest, with remainder to the relations of Admiral Mait-
land. This covenant was not performed, and after the
death of Admiral Maitland, his widow accused Mr.
Bateman, the trustee of the second settlement, of neglect
of his duty, for not compelling the performance of it, and
filed a bill against him to compel him to make good the
loss thereby sustained. The whole sum, however, wail
not lost, as a sum of 1,2001., of Admiral Maithual's estate
was '_recovered by the trustee and paid into Court.
and Mrs. Maitland from time to time received the divi-
dends on the funds in Court. Mr, Bateman, the trustee,
on the commencement of the suit by Mrs. Maitland. in-
stituted a cross suit, and costs were from time to time
incurred by him in these suits. Mrs. Maitland beitve
alesirous to advance some money to her son fur his ad 7
imricement in the Church, executed an appointment in
his favour of one third of her life interest, and was desir-
ous that the money should be paid out of Court. This
was objected to by the trustee, on the ground that the
,settlement gave him a lien on the funds for the costs
that had or might be, incurred by him in the above suits,
and in the execution or his trust.
His LOZDSHIP, after hearing Mr. Pemberton and Mr.
Sidebottom in support of the petition, and Mr. Kinders-
ley and Mr. linnet against it, said that he did not think
he should diminish the trustee's security to any extent
that would be prejudicial to him if he made the order
prayed for, leaving it to him, if he should be advised to
do so, to apply to the Court to stop the order by which
her income was paid to Mrs. Maitland.
GREEN V. BADLEY.
'.Phis was a petition by the representatives of the
trustees under the will of a gentleman named Thomp-
son, who died in 1814, to have a reference made to tl:e
Master, to make certain inquiries. Mr. Thompson, by
his will ;:eviscd his estate. called the Sedgeley Hall
estate, in the neighbourhood of Dudley, in trust, that
after his trustees bad ascertained whether there was any
and what minerals ,'wider it, to make sale of the estate,
and divide the proceta!S among his children, and he em-
powered his trustees,if his ps:a.sonal estate was not sufficient,
to borrow money by mortgage on the estate for the pur-
pose. Attempts were made from ;.:roe to time to ascer-
tain what minerals were under the estate, and consider-
able expenses ineurred_thereby, which were; defrayed by
money borrowed from a banker for the purpose, the tes-
tator's personal estate not being sufficient. It was a2eer •
tained by these experiments that there were
mines of very great value under the estate, and
that, in consequence of this discovery, the
value of the estate had been doubled. A bill having
been filed against the trustees a decree was made in
July, 1831, directing- the usual accounts of rents and
profits received by the trustees, and of all incumbrances
affecting the estate, and also directing a reference to in-
quire whether it would be for the benefit of all parties
that the estate should be sold, reserving the mines and
minerals ; and the Master was directed to allow the
parties all just allownces, but the decree did not
provide for an inquiry as to the expenses
that had been incurred by the trustees in ex-
ecution of the trusts. The Master's report, from
some cause or other, had not been made, and it was now
prayed that an inqniry, as to the stuns expended by the
trustees, should also be made.
Mr. Pemberton and Mr. Renshaw appeared in sup-
port of the petition, and Mr. Kindersley against it.
His Lordesrute said, that it not being denied that money
had been expended, it would be unreasonable and ine-
quitable to exclude the parties altogether from the
ad n
inquiry prayed for, because, by some oversight, it
ha
rt not veen included in the decree, and that the parties
should have the benefit of the investigation made by the
trustees, and not pay the
they had reeson to complain.-Pes.el t how-
ever,ex ens •
of
neglect on
part
of the defendants, in not
Lbringing the matter for-
ward at an earlier lie should, therefore,
direct an inquiry whether'
any and what sums had
been properly laid out by th
search for mines, and that a reportede
shouldfei i defendants
made
win
ie
thereon, with the general report, without delay, and that
that report should be brought on for confirmationd when
the case was brought on for further direction, 01 the
report then to be made. lie thou,ola, thepetitioners
ought to pay the costs of the application, but h
question of the; costs of the report should be reserved.
tathe
Nu
c. COURT, Ne
(Before time Vice-Chancellor of England..).
TOLEDO V. VIETA.

The arguments on this past-heard case, the facts of
yesterday, were resumed, and con-
cludede.which we ~are fulifiy.
honour postponed his d
to-day.
is K —NIGHT BiltlClcf:nient.
Vice-Chancellor.)
(Before
engaged the whole morning in hearing
The Court was .
feature of public • -
!vett no interest
cruses w:iich invg
whatever.
( Before Vice
-Chancellor WIGBAII.)
,‘ .
causes this morning Of no ge-
neral interest, and rose new
A..
, -17 7 BYCII, Nov. 4,
COURT OF QUELII'' E
WALTON V PEN FOLD.
vt•
This was an action brought
bys turnpike
es the lessee o
,ads,
tolls in Surrey against the 'frute
to obtain possession under the )9 of the Surrey jZ.th Geo. 111. The cad
Assizes, and a verdict
was tried at Kingston at the last
found for the plaintiff.
f•,. a rule to set aside
Mr. WRANGHAM now applied .....r 1
the statute in
the verdict, on the ground that unyrthe t
olls.
question the plaintiff had no property in
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that this case involved
an important question, which
was already under the con-
sideration of the Court in the case of a Bridge company,,
and wished therefore that the present case should stand
over. However, take a rule to show cause.
CHAPMAN V. WHITE.
This was an action brought upon some bills of ex-
.
ehan,re and a balance by the Newcastle, Shields, and
Sunderland Union Bank, and the Sunderland Sail Cloth
Company. The case was tried before the Lord Chief
Justice, and a verdict found for the plaintiff in
9,1781. Gs. cid.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now moved for a rule to
enter on a nonsuit on the points reserved, of N% hich we
understand the principal to be, that one of the plaintiffs.
Mr. Chay ter, was manager of the Sunderland Branch of
the Union Company, and was also substantially one of
the defendants, inasmuch as he was a Director, and had
generally acted as ChairmalL of the Sail Cloth Company,
at the time the transactions out of which this action arose
took plaee., and that he had since divested himself of
the latter laraeter with a view to this action. The
Attorney-Ueneral contended that against the defendant
WitiEVOßiulhiiiiifiliad become a Director since, the
p 1 i Clqter-could not transfer his own liabilities.
Tiaoiti) CAF JpikXICE said the question was one
of eensiderable importance, and he recommended the
parties-to make a case. ,
The SOLICITOR-GENtRAL, who was for the defendants,
would confer with the Attorney-General, in order to
agree upon the COMA to be taken fur a determination of
the law points.

SMAWLEY mAGNAy.
The plaintiff is a rag-merchant, carrying on business
in Nottingham, and the defendant is an Alderman of
London, ani a paper manufacturer. The action eras
brought to enforce the payment for a quantity of rags,