The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-10 00:00:00

APPEAL MOTION.-BENSION V. MILBURN.

Mr. Catlin, solicitor, is now being heard for himself and
his client, the apellant in this case. The appellant was
restrained by injunction, by Vice-Chancellor Sir J. Stuart,
from taking proceedings at law in an action between the
said parties, and the question raised is, whether the soli•
citor attending an adjourned summons at Chambers, before
Mr. Baron Martin, is a breach of the injunction and liable to
be committed to prison for contempt of court. The appeal
was dismissed with costs.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Wood.)
JUDGMENT.-KNIGHT V. CLARK.
Plaintiff filed his bill for specific performance of an agree-
ment for a lease of his mining lands to the defendant. By
the 31th section of the agreement it was provided that if
the plaintiff let his mining lands to another, and if tram.
roads or railroads were made thereon, the defendant
should have the privilege of using the same for the
carriage of his ore from his mine. The plaintiff
let his lands to others, and they projected two lines
of railway to two seaports at Cardiff. The defendant, on
the part of the Dowling Iron Mining Company, claimed
the privilege of carriage of iron ore from his mine on these
railways at a reduced scale of charges, and insisted that the
terms thereof should be inserted in his lease.
His Honour the Vice-Chancellor decreed specific per-
formance of the agreement—the lease in terms thereof to be
prepared at chambers, without prejudice to the parties
settling in a court of law, the terms of agreement as the
events occur, and found the defendant liable in costs.
HEAD V. DOODLER.
The question involved arises out of the will of a gentle-
man, of the name of Thomas Woodroffe Smith, dated the
2d of August, 1807 (there being several codicils and another
will executed relating to personal estate only), under which
very large real property was disposed of ; and the personal
estate, also very considerable, after payment of legacies,
was directed to be invested in the purchase of land, to be
settled to the same uses as the estates that wore devised by
the first will. Those estates were devised so as to give the
legal estate to trustees in fee with a direction to settle
them in moieties on the testator's daughters Ann and
Maria for their lives, with remainders to their respective
children in tail with cross remainders. Tho will was very
complicated, and involved so many difficulties, that the
trustees, a year after the testator's death, which took place
May 3, 1811, filed a bill praying that the estate of the tes-
tator might be administered under the direction of the
Court of Chancery. Although several branches of this suit
are described under different heads, the case is well known
under the original one of " Home v. Barton." The Court
upon the hearing directed a reference to the Master to con-
sider what would be a proper deed of settlement under the
will, and the most eminent conveyancers of the day were
consulted as to the limitations which should be contained
in it. Ultimately a deed of settlement of the 18th of
August, 1815, was sanctioned by the Court. This deed
was impeached during a long course of litigation by
the present plaintiff and a Mr. Reynolds, and ulti-
mately petitions of appeal and for rehearing of the
cause of " Horne v. Barton," were presented, and came
on for hearing before the Lords Justices. The substantial
question was whether or not Mr. Head in his appeal, which
related to all the property, and Mr. Reynolds in his appeal,
which relates only to a portion of it—but which it was ad-
mitted must stand or fall on the same question—had made
out a case to have the orders annulled, the case reheard,
and the matter set right from the beginning. The Lords
Justices decided not to disturb the orders previously made,
or the settlements made under them, but gave the parties
liberty to file an independent suit for rho purpose of esta-
blishing their sights, end, if they should succed, intimated
that the right of appeal and rehearing might be entertained.
This state of things led to the institution of the present suit;
and the plaintiff now prayed that the orders and proceed-
ing in the cause of " Horne v. Barton" and the indenture
of settlement of the 18th of July, 181.5, might be declared
inoperative to bind the beneficial interest in the ultimate
reversion of the testator's estates, to which the testator's
daughters, Ann and Maria, expetant on the decease of the
survivor and the failure of their issue, were entitled, or (if
necessary) that it might be declared that the circumstances
that had occurred since the date of the said orders, on the
death of the said Maria Head without issue, having sur-
vived her sister Ann, who also died without issue, the
plaintiff became entitled to the entirety of the freehold and
copyhold estates devised by the will of Thomas Woodroffe
Smith, and of the estates which, in pursuance of of the di-
rections contained in his will, had been purchased with
any part of his personal estate, and to the entirety of the
personal estate of the testator which had been invested in
the purchase of land, the indenture referred to not having
precluded the plaintiff from insisting on such right to the
real estate of the testator, as he would have been entitled
to if the orders had not been made and the indenture exe-
cuted, and also (if necessary) that the plaintiff might be
allowed to present a petition to rehear the said orders.
The arguments were proceeding when the Court arose.