The Sun.
London, England, 1811-11-09 00:00:00

i,dlV

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 7.

.1

g
• .

BARON IInNTESQuiEU V. SANDS.
This was a bearing an bill and answer.
cause was. opened in a brief speech by Sir

Samuel Rom-illy.
It appeared that the Baren,,Monteiquien was ene
of four co-parceners having, right of presentation,
in succession; to the living of Hardress coin Stilling-
ton. Mr. Sands was the Solicitor of Baron Mon-
tesquieu, and lead, in the year 1803, purchased his
right for the-sum of lost. he having at the time a
bill of cost against him, ,which was, on its being
settled, in part liqiiitlatedby the purchase-money.
At, the titre of the. transaaion, the ineumbent on
the. tiding was.a Mr. Bei'kentiam,whe recently died,
and wa; suer:ceded by.pne of the'cn,•parceners, who
pet-Iti to be a C 4160130, and who, being up.
Wttrds , of sixty.years of age, 'afttirded 'Mi. Sands, a
prospeet of an advantage to which the sum he had
paid for it bore no proportion, the whole' produce
of the living being 7001. per ann. The grounds
upon which the lee.ality of the bargain was impeach-
ed were, in the first.place, that an inadequate value
had been given ; and cdly, that Mr. Sands being
Solicitor to the plaintiff, it was his duty to hatre
procured the best information he could with. re-
sped to the. value of the,, reversionary interest of-
fer, d for sale by his clieet, and to .have- refused to
become a purchaser, unless on paying according,.to
the result of such inquiry.
Rlr. LeActr, for the plaintiff; stated, that,the pro.'
Messrs,
had been valued by two eminent . calculators,
Messrs. Morgan and Penley, and it appeared from
their valuation, that what had been purchased for
so trifling a, sum, was actually worth ..17001. A
ground of defence 'which.. was relied on was, that
though t..hete was avowedly an advantage arising,to
Sands from the Irogain; yet that. such .advan-
tage had been given by way of favour; but this.
formed no pail of the •plea:at issue upon. the • record,.
but, on the contrary, it was sttennonsly .contended,
th 4 a full value, considerieg all the circumstances
of,theproperty at the time, had, been given.
• Mr. Ricastins, for the defendant;. contended,
that the purchase his client had,rnacle•was similar in
its nature to that at a Lottery. Ticket; and that the
advantage he was now likely '•triederive from it was
the result of chance, that thetplaintitr had. not ex-
ptersedi any dissatisfaaion at ifisrtrargain till the 'fa-
tality which ()centred, namely,, the. death or ill-
nt•ss. of Mr. Beckenhans- had raised the value •of
the property. At the same timei that. as it was
adinitted that his client had been. ',Solicitor to the
plaintiff, it 'would be:clearly seen that. h war free
from the slightest -imputation .of .frautlf indeed,
this was, pow conftnisecl, although the,bilfsentained
strengeharges of fraud and misrepresentation; but
none having been praaised,' ,tiothing..le•os could in-
jure t lir: rause of his client Alnto. the establishment
by•the Court 'of the pritteiple,.,that no transaction of
this, nature, between a 'solicitor and his client,
should be',considered as legal. :4-Its (Mr.. R.) did
oat 'mean.. the slightest .disrespeet to MCSOI4 Mor-
gln and. Polley, in saying that they had, not had
Sutlicittit data for their respective valuations, and
theri-firre it war 110 vvonder7that, as wag the faa,
ditferencenot inconsiderable Walk tobe found between
them; but neither of them wore,in his opinion ad-
missible, as would appear trout the faas he could
state,
The value of ihe living did .nUi .xcee4. .3601. per
annum,..o4 appeJed froni ti a eptimate
.. of several
praatical persons,- but particularly! Mr. Beckenham's
bailiff, a person whose right, ff:Y 'form a judgment
could not: reasotjable be called in question. Mr.
Beckenham, the him►;bent, qt,the time of the trans-4
f laction ; was in the 48111 .year ufrlik age, and to per.
•fea...healt h.. Now ,t he I,robable :duratoo of such a
life would be calc.ulateil limn the tables without he-
sitation,, but • in such tf'calculation. no regard would
be had to a very important ,circtunattinee, the strength
• (Witte, party's constitution,: and with 30 material an
Omission no one could, censcientiouly say whether
the: life was fairly ,valaid or otherwise. An old
lady, a Nba. Denman, was also living at the time of
.the purchase, who was dile of the.co•parceners, and
lad 'the right, of presentation on the demise of Beck-
. etrharni !' and ,it was. known -to be .her inteutiowto
presentio the henetice,, if the opportunity occurred,
ayening-man, named. Gregory, who, however, was
• 'net eligible 'till hehad,reachothhis..24th ,year. .This
- Lady died befor tharperiod, and, of on Mr.
llockeithern!s.cleatho:the present incumbent succeed-
The plaintiff had not iatfaed the property to the
defendant till lie had first endeavoured to ,dispose of
• it' to othets, and found, that lie could not get. more
' for it than what was ultistrately given ; Jae bad; in
oflered. it: to a person possessing the manor on
Which the living.was situate, and to whom it -would;
of necessity, be! inure valuable than any. other per--
son,; ,and, those circumstances went to ascertain the
• value ranch mote etfedually than the calculations of
• any professional Men. In the course' of the trans-
. action there was,no confidence whateter placed by
• the'. laintiff in Mr. &MIN, hut, every iencase within
his reach Were had• recourse t0.,m0, order to obviate
tlte.ttazard of Making an improvident haraain nor
~could it be reasonably contended; OW Mr. Sands,
on ,being (detect the property, ant.i,in duty botand to
refrain front ,:tecepling it 1111 ho had put his clivrif,
who had ample means of Informing:himself without
look to the, ex,penss of a format valuntiert.-',
;4115fit was a reluctant purchaser,
,and had only con.
sewed to become a pnrehaSer lft all upon` its being
propO4(4:by 4.0101) MonteSqUieu-that the debt he
; • would hus should bxliquideted.by his bill
of o,,at, so tOt. Cile01001(0ett in Net, strength-
eurdr rotherAhan enfeebled the cause of his client.—
The bovin2.was Made. •in
,1103,-and the writings
w- ere riot).Liecuted 1800 the lapse of
, •
tinparientx was evine;d to close the
trars:imcirri by his cheot, nor any doubt of its fair.
• - nets by. theplainiitf. In 180t3, the deed of coilvey:,.
*nce.was`signed, and the, bill .of cost discharged,
Ittnonoting„in all, to 1451, and the charges of which
•_ it consisted were.of 80 moderate a nature, that it was
• onloter of surprise with_ bitn bow the,business of t
• plaitititi could be performed at so cheap a rate. All he
this passed without the smallest demotion_ the part
oillaron Montesquieu, and should be . construed
into a tacit. coriseut of the 'fairne9 of the original
transadion ; nor did, he ever hint his regret till alter