The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGBIVC.E.-(THIS .DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
APPEAL.-WYTHES V. LABOUCHERE,

At the conclusion of Mr. Rolt's reply for the respondent,
he Lord Chancellor reserved judgment.
APPEAL.-MONEYPENNY V. MONEYPENNY.

This is an appeal from an order of Vice-Chancellor Sir
W. Page Wood, disallowing Mrs. Moneypenny's claim of
an annuity of £3OO as her jointure, under articles of inden-
ture, on her husband, Joseph Moneypenny, and Philip
Moneypenny's bankrupt estates.

Mr. Daniel, Q.C., is now being heard for the appellant.
APPEAL.-HAVILAND V. MORTIBOY.
The Lord Chancellor requested Mr. Rolt, Q.C., to point
out to him a particular passage in the cross-examination of
the appellant in this.ease, as he could not find it on search-
ing for it amongst the affidavits in the cause this morning.
Judgment will be given in this important appeal cause
by the Lord Chancellor and Lords Justices on Wednesday
morning about half-past ten o'clock.

ROLLS COURT.
:Before the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Romilly.)
WYNNE V. HUGHES-JUDGMENT.

His Honour the Master of the Rolls said—This is a mo-
tion which is made for the purpose of staying proceedings
in a cause in the Court of Chancery arising between
the same parties, and the points in dispute are
the same as in a cause between the same parties in
the Duchy Court of Lancaster. The object of the suit is
the same in both courts ; and where there are two courts
that have, or should have, co-extensive jurisdiction in the
same suit, and are so constituted in point of form, the ques-
tion is whether, under such an application, the authority
(or judge) of this court will stay proceedings in the suit in
this court on account of the proceedings in the other court,
and declare and pronounce such an order as will allow either
to proceed. But it is necessary to consider the results of the
cases in these courts—in both courts—in that court and
this court.

This mon Edwards, in August, 1848, executed two deeds
which contained in point of fact a power to sell all his pro-
perty. The one deed contained a power of sale, and the
other a declaration of his trnsts. Part of his real estates
were situated in the Duchy of Lancaster, and part in other
counties in England. His real estates within and without
the jurisdiction of the Duchy Court of Lancaster were sold
and converted into personalty, and after his debts were paid
by his trustees a surplus remained in their hands, and the
question raised was, whether the surplus of the sale of the
estates was realty or personalty, and in what proportions,
in what counties, and under what jurisdiction ?
His Honour was of opinion that he could not interfere
with the suits of the parties,—both parties might have
different interests in different courts. The plaintiff might
have very different interests in his suit in Chancery from
what he would have in a suit in the Duchy Court of Lan-
caster, and it is one thing to say that he cannot go on so
easily in that court as in this—the forms of procedure may
be different and may affect his case, `but the question is,—
can I extend the suit in Chancery to the suit in the Duchy
Court of Lancaster, and restrain farther proceedings in that
court ? I cannot. I must refuse this motion, but at Are
same time I must reserve the costs. He said the plaintiff
might be entitled to claim on both estates, and therefore
he was entitled to decree, bat his Honour refused this
motion, and reserved the question of costs.