The Sun.
London, England, 1827-05-08 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY.

The LORD CHANCELLOR sat at five minutes past ten
o'clock, and proceeded on the appeal paper.
Several of the appeals were ordered to stand over till
Saturday week, in consequence of Mr. Horne having had
to go ir to the country last night to see his eldest daughter,
whither she had gone for the benefit of her health, and
who, we regret to state, he did not expect to find alive on
his arrival.

• LOVERIDGE V. COOPER.

Mr. SHADivELL stated, that this was an appeal from
a decree made by the late Sir Thomas Plutner. A
Mr. Robert Johnson left 12,0501. four per cents.
in trust to pay from the dividends 5001. a year to
his widow as long as she lived, and then that a moiety
of the principal should be divided equally among as
many sons of the testator's brother as might be living at
the time of the widow's death. The widow died in 1821,
there being four of the sons alluded to then living, who con-
sequently became entitled each, in a fourth of 6,0251. Those
sons having had a contingent interest in the property fr m
the death of the testator till the death of the widow, Richard,
one of the sons, in September, 1816, assigned over a part of
his contingent interest, without leaving any deeds for it ;
and in December in the same year, made a sale of the
whole of his interest, without notice of the former incum.
brance ; in the following year the purchaser gave notice
of his purchase to the trustee ; in the next year notice of
the mortgage was given to the trustee also, and the ques-
tion was, whether the notice to the trustee of the
sale had annulled the mortgage ? The effect of the
judgment of the late Master of the Rolls was in favour of
this position, deciding therefore that the first incumbrance
had been destroyed. The Counsel for the appellants
could not for a moment conceive that this Court would
permit this entirely new dicta of law to stand. There
never had been such a decision made before, nor was there
any case precisely in point in the books. In one case, in-
.leed, that had been before Mr. Justice Buller, he expressed
an opinion in favour of this sort of law, but Lord Eldon
Lad subsequently stated that no such opinion could be
supported or established.
Mr. SUGD/r.N appeared for the respondents, and con-
tended, that as this sort of property could only he dealt
with in equity, certain rules were necessary to be laid down
for the protection of those who purchased it, and that one
of those rules must be, that if the assignee (for instance,
as in this case) neglected to give notice to the trustee or
assignee of the properly, of his claim off it, before the a,-
signee had allowed another person to acquire an interest in
it, the first claim must be lost. This decision of the late
Master had only followed what the profession had for a
very long time conceived to be the practice, though no
case precisely in point had ever occurred.
His Lonnsitir said, as this was an appeal, and that, too,
upon a nice point, from the judgment of the Master of the
Rolls, be considered himself entitled to have an opportu-
nity of carefully reading over the pleadings before he de-
cided it. He also begged to be furnished with the short-
hand writer's notes of the judgment that had been given.