The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-25 00:00:00

PINCHEHILLI V. PHILIPS,

This was a motion to dissolve an injunction, which had been ob-
tained by the plaintiffs, Messrs. Pincher'lll and Co., merchants of
London and Smyrna, to restrain the defendants, Messrs. Phillips and
Co•, merchants, of London, from making use of a bill of lading for
twenty five chests of opium, which they had consigned ou the de-
fendants.

It appeared that the plaintiffs (who had become insolvents) were
indebted at the time of the shipment of goods to the defendants in a
general account of 2,3001., and the defendant had been in the kabit
.1' accepting bills of exchange in liquidation of debts arisirg
tof orders that had bees executed by the plaintiffs. On th•
resent occasion the defendants considered that it would be mote
Advisable to depart from their usual practice, and set the amount of
the opium to the credit side of their account with Messrs. Pincherilli
and Co. The plaintiffs then obtained the injunction which it was
now sought to set aside.
The having been concluded,
arguments

Lord LANGDALE, in delivering judgment said, that in July, 1845,
the plaintiffs suffered severely from a fire that occurred at Smyrna,
and to such an extent as to be unable to pay the demands against
them. However, being persons of credit who had carried on business
reap ct ably for a considei able ti me, they hoped,and not without reason,
to obtain sympathy and assistance from their friends, notwithstanding
he losses they had sustained. In this they succeeded, and amongst the
-feuds who assisted them were the present (lei endants, who advanced.
them a sum of 1,5001., for the payment of which they stated they
would afford them sufficient time. There were two bills given for this
sum, one for 4081., the other for the remainder of the loan,
and it was alleged that the former was to be paid at the time it be-
came due, and with rc spect to the latter it was of course natural to
suppose that, though the defendant was anxious to afford accommo-
dation to the plaiutiffe, he did not resign his right as
a creditor. Accordingly it was expressed in a letter to
the plaintiffs by the defendant that he entertained a
hope that remittances would barnacle tram tima to time on account.
There appeared on both,,sides a, desire for mutual accommodation.
A letter had been written: by &a' piaintiffs, relauresided at Smyrna,
to t,e defendant, which that it would be for their
mutual advantage, if them,, were. ttme granted for the pay-
ment of their account. 'This( showed the position in which
the parties stOod with relation toteack dther, and the knowledge the
defendant poiseessed cif theottattalbf /he plaintiff's pecuniary affairs.
They must-now come to the correspondence, that took place, which
Was adducid as evidenCe of thevcontract which'the plaintiffs al-
leged to exist. The first letter respecting the, transaction out
of which the present proceedings had grown was dated
the 27th, of January, 1846, And was froiu theAlefendant to Isaac Pin-
cherilli 'Alt Smyrna, giving an ordilfor twenty-five chests' of opium,
stating that he.would givelhisa thg usuitUrehnbursement,oll.heir ac-
count. Now, under ordinary ciroumstanee„4 could not be supposed
that thq words " usual reimbursement" had)any,other meaning than
that thadefendalt:preant to regard theppium aT4a. payment of his
account. But, th gibcc•trring shortly after the.circnmstances of the
plain, iffe had become known, and • Pattertelhe receipt of
a letter to that effect, it could scarceiy be expected
that the plaintiffs stould be considered by the defend
ant as being able to make OS siiipment of the extent
required without being paidiSfoc it. 4 AM'. Isaac Pencherilli
acted on this view, and as he had taipurchasethe opium, paid forit
in the most convenient way, which wallbyAlrawingbills of exchange.
His Lordship having gone Into. tke correspondence,
which was very voluminous, concluded. bAsaylng, that he saw no
reason to dissolve the injunction,eandiarderel that the motion should
be dismissed, and the costs paid by th 'defendants.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, April 24.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Baron ALDEasox.)
ROBINSON V. GLASS.
This was an action brought to recover the amount of a bill
furnished by the plaintiff to the dtfOn taut, for clothes. The
defence set up was, that the defendant's fatter was always
in the habit of paying these bills. The father bad become
a bankrupt in 1844, and the • son sought to shield himself
under that bankruptcy from payment of the bill ; it having, how-
ever, appeared in evidence that the father had, previous to 1844,
warned Rubins:Ai not to furnish certain clothes to his son, assuring hint
that be would not pay for such, if they were; and it also having ap-
peared that the SOD, who hatlibefore been supported by his father,
had been appointed to a Government situation,
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount sought,
391. Bs., with costs.