The Sun.
London, England, 1842-11-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIG ENCE.

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

IN THE CASE OF THE HOT BLAST PATENT.-NEILSON

V. SMITH AND OTHERS.
This case came before the Court upon the petition
of Mr. Neilson, praying that his Lordship would
stay the further proceedings upon a scirc facias which
had been issued to repeal a patent obtained by Mr.
Neilson in September, 1828 ; that patent expired in
September of the present year, and upon that ground
it was that the present application was made. The
patent was for the application of hot blasts in the
smelting of iron, an invention of the most invaluable
nature to the iron trade. Mr. Neilson having obtained
his patent in 1828, continued in the undisturbed posses-
sion of it till 1832, when it was infringed by a person
named Wilmer, against whom the patentee filed a bill
in this Court, and after certain proceedings had been
taken against him, Mr. Wilmer acquiesced in the
patent, took out a license, and afterwards worked under
it. No further infringement took place till 1836, when
the proprietors of the Dowlais Iron Works in Wales
were guilty of a breach of the patent, a bill was filed
against them, and they took out a license, acquiesced in
the patent, and worked under it. In the year 1840, the
patent becoming ofgeneral use, the iron masters in Wales
entered into a species of combination to work without
a license, the consequence of which was, that consider-
able litigation took place, and actions were brought
against the principal iron-masters, one of whom was
Mr. Alderman Thompson. Those actions were tried
in the Court of Exchequer, and the validity of the
patent established. The sub'ect then came again be-
fore the present Lord Chancellor, who decided that
the judgment come to in the Court of Exchequer was
correct. A similar combination was entered into
by the iron masters in Scotland ; proceedings
were taken there, and a similar result took
place ; the validity of the patent in that country
was established. A bill of exceptions, however, was
taken to the ruling of the Learned Judge who tried
that case, and that bill of exceptions was now pend-
ing in the House of Lords. In the meantime, how-
ever, from some cause or other, the parties in Scotland
had applied to the Attorney-General for his fiat to
issue a scire facias to repeal the English letters
patent. The Attorney-General, upon the application
being made to him, issued his fiat for the scire facias in
August last, that writ being returnable on the 2d of
the present month.
The Solicitor-General, Mr. Bethell, and Mr. Camp-
bell, appeared for the petitioners, contending that
the Court had jurisdiction to stay the proceedings
under the writ ; that if those proceedings went on
the patentee would have to plead, and to litigate the
validity of the patent at enormous expense, for no
legitimate purpose. The scire facias was a preroga-
tive writ issued by the Crown, and there was no legi-
timate ground for issuing that writ on the part of the
Crown, because there was every opportunity for the
parties to discuss the validity of the patent in the pro-
ceedings that were now going on.
The Attorney-General, Mr. Wakefield, and Mr.
Roupel appeared to oppose the application.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was proceeding in his
address to the Court in opposition to the petition, when
His LORDSHIP interposed, and at his suggestion
the case was ordered to stand over till the bill of ex-
ceptions in the House of Lords was decided.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY).
(Before Vice• Chancellor Sir JAMES WIGnAm.)
MORRALL V. PRICKARD.

His Honotin gave judgment in this cause, which
came before the Court on demurrer yesterday. The
case stated was an agreement come to between the
plaintiff and Adam Lodge deceased, whose executors
were defendants in the cause, by which the plaintiff
agreed to convey to Lodge a piece of land in Lodge-
lane, Liverpool, for 500/., subject to the payment of
the debts and incumbrances affecting the said pre-
mises. The plaintiff also agreed to assign to Adam
Lodge all his interest under a certain contract for the
purchase of a piece of land, by which it was stipulated
that certain messuages and offices would be erected,
subject to the payment of the existing debts affecting
the same. The plaintiff further agreed to assign to
Adam Lodge all his right to an equity of redemption
to certain houses in Sackville-street, Liverpool. Now
putting out of the case the statute of limitations, there
could be no question about the 500/. being a good
charge ; it was quite clear that the agreement had not
been performed by which Adam Lodge agreed to
indemnify the plaintiff, in respect of certain charges.
In the case of a surety entitled to be indemnified, if
the executor would admit assets, the Court would not
allow those assets to be dissipated without making
provision for the payment of debts. It had been con-
tended that the deviseesPf the real estate ought to
have been parties. He thought the case which he
had put of suretyship would get rid of that point.
This was a personal contract, by which Adam Lodge
agreed to indemnify the plaintiff out of his personal
estate, and that estate would, therefore, clearly be
liable. The same observation would apply to the
point of multifariousness, which had been put in sup-
port of the demurrer. It was contended that Graves,
who had been in partnership with Adam Lodge and
the plaintiff, ought to have been made a party. It
was a very common thing for a merchant of the city
of London to be a partner in four or five different
concerns. It would be impossible to take an account
of his share in each. of those concerns without separate
suits ; hut if one of the parties agreed for valuable
consideration to indemnify another party, it would be
impossible to contend that in a bill to wind up his
affairs all the parties in all the concerns ought to be
brought before the Court. It appeared, therefore, to
him that this demurrer could not be sustained.