The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-16 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

IN RE SAUNDERS.

Upon the application of a gentleman behind the bar,
The LORD CHANCELLOR directed the order to he made
In this tnntios, the papers in which he had read. It wa4
'llot stated what the nature of the motion was, but it was
understood to relate to a bond.

poRTMEN V. MILL.
When this was called on it was found that the motion
had keen disposed of before the long vacation ; but as
iudement had not yet been delivered, Sir E. Sugden was
Instructed •.o pray for
The Loan CHANCELLOR said he should dispose of it
very shortly.

DARLINGTON V. DARLINGTON.
Sir Eow.sen SUDDEN moved, on the part of Mr.
Abraham Darlington, that the hiddings at the tole
by the direction of the Court of Brindles Hall Farm in the
• Parish of Acton, near Nanrwich, might be ordered to
he reopened. The property was sold to Admiral Tolle.
nische for 5,400/. on the 9th of April last. Mr. Darling-
ton subsequently came forward and cifered an additional
SOO/. for the estate. Application was made to the Vice-
Chancellor to have the biddings re-opened, which motion
he refused, with costs; hence the present motion. The
Admiral took possession on the very day after the purchase,
Which was of itself an improper step, because he had no
right to do so without having first been confirmed
in the purchase by the Court. The G-ntleman now
aPPIOng was himself entitled to a moiety of the
estate, or of the purchase-money for life, and which at
ilia decease descended absolutely to his children and grand.
rhildren ; he was not allowed to attend the sale; affidavits
were filed to show that the estate was worth nearly
7,000/ and he now came forward offering a higher price
than the Admiral had bid, There were many infants and
married women interested in this estate, and it was the
duty of the Court to take care that every thing possible
Wee done for their benefit. The question was not, whe-
ther the estate was worth more or less than the Admiral
had agreed to pay for it, but whether it would not he for
the advantage of the infants, &c. that the hiddings should
be opened again upon an offer of an advance of 5001. ?
,
Was no objection to Mr. Darlington that he was an
interested party. Very often branches of families to
Whom estates that were to be sold belonged, turned out
in be the best purchasers. Sir Edward could not see why
the Present motion should not be granted.
Mr. ROGERS was on the same side. Mr. Darlington
tV„Il desirous of attending the sate. He did attend it, until
15 Receiver told him he had no business there, when he
immediately left the room. Unless for the circumstances
ofhis Honour having dismis.ed the application, this
Motion could not but be regarded as one of course, Hooper
Godwyn, in " Cooper's Reports," page 95, was conclu-
lite on the point.
Mr. BARBER appeared for the plaintiffs, the owners of
the property ; and upon something like an objection being
Leised to his being heard, he said he considered himself to
"a the most important man in the cause. This was a
tale in which there was an immense number of individuals
entitled to the protection of the Court; and upon the
\ Principle laid down by Lord Eldon in Lefroy v. Lefroy, in
n "usell's Reports, the Court was bound to look to what
,would be for the benefit of the parties interested in the
Property.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL believed the only party
ettitled to open the biddings of a sale under the
direction of the Court was an indifferent person. A
* rartY in the cause could not bid even without the previous
!le of the Court. Mr. Darlington was a party mate-
tr„lllll7 interested, he bad net obtained the leave of the
`-'nulto bid, and surely he could not now come forward
;aid pei to set aside the sale that had taken olace.
Tile auction occupied two hours. His client (Admiral
hallemaehe) had conducted himself most fairly, the sale
4" been properly made to him, and ought not
:.W to be disturbed. Besides, Mr. Darlington
44;
y' g
a party interested, he was tenant in pots-
hun at the time the sale took placer, he gave up
ri teessinn to the Admiral on the day after the sale. He
4 aPtiateil with him for certain fixtures in the hall. Ad-
Tollemache granted a lease of the farm to a Mr.
aunknell, and Mr. Darlington subsequently became the
itillader tenant of Hocknell for a part of that very farm,
h. Yet he sought to set aside the original rule which he
„ thus recognised. Furthermore, he had said that,
lue Admiral would give him two hundred pounds,
tert, Would let him have the property at his
its; Price. This was a motion unprecedented in
t tlature, from being the motion of the parties entitled
°,-••a fee of the estate, and who were all parties in the
tear: el therefore he (the learned Attorney) trusted his
,edehip would dismiss the motion, as his Honour had
""e • h wit costs.
Air KINDUSLEY and Mr. RICHARDS followed on the
121,
aide.
kr. ROGERS, in the absence of Sir E. Snonex, re_
dial , Mr. Darlington delivered up possession iron-w-
-ho a'Y after the sale, because he had been told he was
tied
to do so. The purchaser was told at the sale
Dthat ae the property was going for so small a sum, it was
ore than probable the biddings would be re-opened. Mr.
tt,itt.bnd offered to take 2001. to have nothing more to do
be " i-tt because he.was told by his country attorney that
re..6Might experience great difficulty in getting the bidding'
shPeaned• The Admiral had offered Mr. D. 501. to
,t
.111 from applying to re-open the biddings. The
lor'2.ver, Mr. Lee bad grossly misconducted himself in
1 Itit7lng possession to be taken, or rather in giving it up,
Licauut authority of the Court. There was not a bona fide
:,„ mar in the sale room, except the agents of Admiral
011eurache. It was because Mr. Darling-on saw the
I,:aoi,rtY was being given away that he now came for.
oi,r‘ With the offer he made ; he was ready to pay the
wra with costs, and give whatever security might be
iehrired for the rest of the purchase money provided
ble Motion was granted. It was a most illogical argu-
ea:t to be taken by the Attorney• General, that be.
th k Mr. D. was not in a condition to bid at the sate,
the he was incapacitated from coming here to reopen
torte biddings. lie had a right, on all the authorities, to
peso the Court to re-open the biddings ,• and, if it were
Ise„,:arY, he had only to ask fir leave to bid, which
all ;17 be granted to him as a matter of course. Under
everuese circumstances, the Learned Counsel entertained
not!..confidence that his Lordship would grant the motion,
dib:lthetanding the Court below bad taken the extraor-
-I,llCOurse of refusing it.
tp.,lbe LORD CHANCELLOR desired to be furnished
4114 the affidavits, that be might have an oppor.
efteoY of reading the whole of them. It had very
been a question whether the re-opening of biddings at
441 e b the Court of Chancery had a tendency to keep
laiti`y
bidders or not. His Lordship was inclined to think
tat It tended to keep back those who were desirous of
`tes,l .ibg a, a bargain ; but that, on the other hand, it
„ bring forward those who felt disposed to give
,4" of the property to be sold.