The Sun.
London, England, 1826-07-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OP CHANCERY (Tess DKr.)
000DSON e. suasox.
Mr. HORNE stated that the parties had been considering
this case with respect to amending the bill as to the point
the Court had suggested, but that they had found it im-
practicable to amend it in such a way in consequence of
the great number of parties interested : this is important
in this respect. By a deed of 1767, a Mr. Ellison was
invested as a trustee of an estate, in trust for eight per-
sons. By devolution that trust tad descended to the pre-
sent defendants, two ladies. The persons entitled to the
equitable trust sold a parcel of the estate (sixteen
acres), but the defendants refused to join in the con-
veyance of it. A bill was filed against them to com-
pel them to convey. The case was originally heard
before the present Master of the Rolls, who ordered them
to convey, and to pay all the costs. The case was brought
here by an appeal from that order; and the Lord Chancel-
lor has stated that he had no conception that he was to be
so treated in this Court. If trustees chose, they had a
right to say they would not part with a trust estate by
parcels. The parties entitled to the estate could divest
trustees of the whole of the estate, but only by taking
away the whole; and could only do that by using the
the very terms too which had been used in conveying the
estate to the trustees.

In the present case, the defendants, in their answer,
intimated that they themselves were entitled to the estate,
but did not state any ground whatever for entertaining any
such notion; and his Lordship was perfectly satisfied that
they had no more beneficial interest in them, than the
most perfect stranger in London. It was extremely cruel
towards them, for any person to buoy them up with the
slightest idea that they had any title to the property what-
ever. Mr. Horne further begged leave to mention the
case again on next Wednesday, by which time' he hoped
to be able to satisfy the Court that the plaintiffs were en-
titled to have the estate conveyed.

EItOWNE V. DE TASTET.
Mr. Solicitor-General occupied a great part of the morn-
ing in making observations on this case. He appeared on
the part of the defendant, Mr. De Tastet, and his ground
of objection was, that when the case was referred to Mas-
ter Courtenay, to take an account of the personal property
belonging to the late Mr. Mangiii, possessed by his sur-
viving partner, Mr. De Tastet, and the gains and profits
made upon it; the Master had assumed the disputable
point that Mr. Mangin was to be considered as a continu-
ing partner, and that upon that footing he had taken the
account, by which Mr. De Tastet had been made a debtor
to the deceased gentleman's estate, to the amount of
30,0004 Much of the profits of Mr. De Tastet's
house had arisen from personal labour, and not from the
use of money at all, and therefore Mr. Mangin's estate
could not have any right to claim a share in those profits.
The Learned Gentleman concluded by hoping the Court
would refer the case back to the Master to review his
report.

His LORDSHIP said, be would dispose of Craw:hay v.
Collins on Saturday, and at the conclusion of that judg.
ment state whether he should require the case of Browne
v. De Tastet to be further spoken to or not. •

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.—(Tms DAT.)
ONSLOW V. ONSLOW.
The personal representative of Lady Drake filed a bill
against the trustees of the property of Sir Francis Drake,
to compel them to account for three fourths of Sir Fran-
cis's personal property, to which, as the wife of a citizen,
she was entitled according to the customs of London.—
This, the trustees opposed on the grounds that Sir
Francis Drake had made a . settlement of 15,0001.
on Lady Drake in lieu of dower, and the one-third to
which she would be entitled at common law, in case she
should survive him. Sir Francis died in 1789 intestate,
and Lady Drake received from the trustees 7,5001., being
a moiety of what she was entitled to by the settlement.
The trustees contended that this was a bar to her claims
according to the customs of London. It having been
argued in last term, the Vice-Chancellor directed that the
opinion of the Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen
should be taken respecting the customs of the City on this
point. This having been done the Recorder returned a certi-
ficate, stating that there was nothing in the deed of settle-
ment which should preclude Lady Drake from that. share
of Sir Francis's personal property, to which, as the wife
of a citizen, she was entitled.
Mr. Hart, on behalf of the Trustees, contended this
day that the deed of settlement was a bar to all claims in
support of this position. He cited Bott. V. Lee and Lewin
Lewin, in Peer William, where a settlement before
marriage had been decided by the Lord Mayor and the
Court of Aldermen, to be a sufficient bar to the claims of
the wife; according to the customs of London.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, that according to the
principles of common law, Lady Drake was by the settle-
ment excluded from all claims on real property, but it did
not bar her from her share of the personal property. The
only question was, whether, according to the customs of
the city of London, she was excluded from claims on the
personal property. It appeared by the certificate of the
Lord Mayor and Aldermen, that she was not. His
Honour decreed that three-fourths of the money that arose
from the sale of the personal property of Sir Francis
Drake, and also 7,5001. the other moiety of the settle-
ment to be given to the plaintiff.