The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-24 00:00:00

LAW INTR.

THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

(Peers pmsent—The Lord Chancellor, Lord Cranworth,
Lord Wensleydale, Lord Kingsdown, and other peers.)
APPEAL-GALBRAITH V. THE EDINBURGH AND GLASGOW

BANK.

At the conclusion of the arguments of counsel this after-
noon, the Lord Chancellor delivered judgment.
This was an appeal from a decision of the Second Divi-
sion of the Court of Session in Scotland setting aside a bond
for £5,000, in respect that the requisites of the Scotch
statute 1692, which required the numbering of the folios or
pages upon which it was written, had not been complied
with.

The Lord Chancellor was of opinion that as the require-
molts of that statute had not been complied with, the:bond
in question was null and void. His lordship regretted he
was obliged to come to this conclusion in the case of a bond
which in all other respects was fair and regular, but the
requisites of the statute were imperative, and ought to be
observed.

Lord Cranworth, Lord 'Wensleydale, and Lord Kings-
down also delivered their opinions, entirely concurring in
that of the Lord Chancellor.

The Lord Chancellor affirmed the judgment of the Court
of Session, and dismissed the appeal.

COURT OF CHANCERY.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir Richard Torin Kindersley.)
JUDGMENT.-THE NEW BRUNSWICK AND CANADA RAIL•
WAY AND LAND COMPANY V. MUGGERIDGE.

The plaintiffs filed their bill against defendant for specific
performance of his agreement to take 600 shares at £2O per
share in the company; 500 shares were allotted to him,
250 were appropriated by him, upon which he paid a de-
posit of £2 per share, and calls of £2 and £3 per share
afterwards, in all about £6OO. Defendant pleaded—first
that he never signed the subscribers' agreement, and second,
that it would be nugatory to do so because he could at any
time withdraw from being a shareholder of the company,
and put an end to the partnership, and the Court could
not effectually decree specific performance of the
agreement in question. His Honour, the Vice-Chancellor,
after considering the prospectus of the company, the terms
of the Acts of Parliament incorporating the company, and
the defendant's letters of acceptance of the shares of the
company applied for and allotted to him by the company,
overruled the defendant's pleas in tote, and decreed specific
performance of the agreement, with costs.
His Honour, on the application of the defendant's coun-
sel, Mr. Glasse, Q.C., allowed the defendant time to sign
the subscribers' agreement and pay up the calls.

ROLLS COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls.)
JUDGMENT.-TAITE P. WINSTEAD,

His Honour the Master of the Rolls said—The question
in this case is whether the power of sale contained in the
will of the late Norris Shea is still in force or not. It arises
under a clause in his will which bears date August 1, 1829,
by which he devised all his freehold buildings in Stoke
Newington to four trustees in trust, to be divided into five
shares amongst his five sons, their wives, and children—
three-fifths in fee, and two-fifths as tenants in common ;
and the question raised was, whether the trustees had
power to sell one-fifth share of the property for the benefit
of the surviving widow and children of his youngest son.
His Honour considered that the trustees had power to sell
and convert the real estate into personalty, and that the
title to be given by the trustees was a good and sufficient
title to the purchaser, and declared accordingly.