The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-10 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

PRICE V. PRICE.
This was a case in which a demand was made for certain costs.
The parties were brothers.

His Loansuir, in giving judgment, reviewed the whole case. He
said that it happened in this case, as it frequently did in transac-
tions between parties so nearly allied as the plaintiff and defendant,
who had implicit reliance in the same solicitor, while they had a
ieperite interest, and who made no provision for any contingency
that might arise. The circumstances of the case were
simply- these:---The plaintiff, in the year 1815, becom.
ing embarrassed to a ' considerable degree, determined
to go' abroad, but before he departed. being desirous
that his property should be managed in a manner the most con-
ducive to his advantage, he executed certain deeds which pur
potted to be an actual conveyance of his prcperty to his brother,
the defendant, who undertook to manage or to superintend the
management of the same. ' After two years absence the'
plaintiff returned, the property being still managed by the de.
fetidant ; the expenses incidentally incurred to be paid by both
parties. It had been urged that this was a case of mere. trustee •
ship, of mortgage, or of agency. It certainly was not a case merely
of trusteeship, because there was no evidence to show that in the
deed of conveyance the defendant was vested with that character
merely, -for he was at the same time empowered to manage the
property. For the same reason it could neither bee- case of simple
mortgage or of simple agency. In fact the character. in which
the defendant stood was a compound of these three• rela-
tions. It appeared that the parties differed in 1829 or 1830,
and the plaintiff demanded the legal estate to be returned, which
the defendant resisted, alleging that he had claims which should be
first settled. A bill was then filed in Chancery by the plaintiff,
and defendant's demand of 2,4001. was reduced to 8001., of which he
had established his claim only to 781. Now perhaps the demand of the
defendant was just, but as he could produce no vouchers for the same,
he must take the consequences of the position in which he stood.
The present application by the defendant for the costs of the suit
it would be hard to grant, when be had failed to establish his
claims. Nor did he think defendant entitled as mortagee, when
there did not appear to be any mortage ati all. Under the cir-
cumstances he would not, grant costs on either side, the expense •f
the deed of re-conveyancing must be borne by the party taking
it out.

VICE-CH ANCERY.-(THIS DAY.;
(Before Vice- Chancellor KNIGHT KRUM)
ROBINSON S. DR LIZARD!.

A. demurrer, wee put in on thevart of Messrs. De Lizardi end-
Co. against the bill of the plaintiffs, that the Mexican Government
had been made a defendant, and that the active holders of Mexican
bonds were hot sufficiently represented in the case. It appears
that the active Mexican bondholders flied a bill some time ago, re-
quiring the Messrs. De Lizardi and Company, the late agents
for the Mexican Government, to pay over to Messrs.
Schneider and Comslany, the present agents, for the payment
of Mexican bonds, the money remitted from Mexico for this pur.
pose to M. del Lizardi and Co. But ou the ground of claims
against the Mexican Government M. de Lizardi and Co., as having
been the agents of the Government aa.d not of the bondholders, re-
fuse to pay over.

Mr. Wigram, Q.C., and Mr. Heathfield were heard for the de-
nursri Mr. ltusaell,
Q.C., and Mr. Maylins for the plaintiffs.
loNoust overruled the demurrer, but without prejudice to
the answer afterwards to be made, and that the cause should be
proceeded with, the defendants having the benefit of the demurrer
When that answer has been made.