The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-05 00:00:00

IN RE SUISSE.

This case stood on the paper to-day, but *pm its
being called on, in consequence of the absence of Mr.
S. Sharpe. who was engaged in Vice-Chancellor
Wigram's Court, the motion was ordered to stand
over to Thursday, the next seal.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Dcc. 3.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND).
EXPARTE MARE V. THE NORTH MIDLAND RAILWAY

COMPANY.-JUDGMENT.
His HoNoun gave judgment to-day on this case,
confirming the purchase of certain lands, not included
in the schedule of the Act constituting the railway.

EVANS V. JAMES.-JUDGMENT.
His HoNous also gave judgment in this case, in
which the bill was filed for an account. The Court
directed the account as prayed.

WHITE R. HUNT.—JUDGMENT.
His HONOUR also gave judgment in this case, de-
creeing the transfer of certain stock to the plaintiff.

CUTTS V. THODY.-JUDGMENT.

His HONOUR also gave judgment in this case, di-
recting the specific performance prayed by the bill.
This being the first seal after Michaelmas term,
the Court proceeded to hear motions, none of which
possessed and feature of public interest.

(Before Sir JAMES :WIGRAM.)
PINKETT V. WRIGHT.
His Hosous gave judgment in this case. His
Honour said the case appeared to be this. In the
month of April, 1830, the sum of 21,0001. Consols
was standing in the name of John Wright, banker,
and Henry Robinson, upon the trusts of a settlement,
dated the 3d of April, 1828, 'of which Francis John-
son, deceased; was the author, and under which settle-
ment the plaintiffs in this cause claimed to he bone-
iicially interested. The trustees of the settlement, in
the absenco of Johnson, sold out 5,0001. part of this
stock, and with that 5,0001. purchased 160 shares
1001. each in the capital of the Provincial Bank of
Ireland, which were transferred into the name of
Wright alone, but as trustee, and upon the trusts of
the settlement. On the 9th of January, 1830, John-
son, Wright, and Robinson, executed a declaration of
trust, which was indorsed on the original settlement,
by which they declared that Wright and Robinson as
to the sum of 16,0001. Consols the residue of the
21,0001., and Wright as to the 160 shares purchased
in his name with the other part of the trust money,
were trustees upon the trusts of the settlement of
April 1828. Johnson died in 1833, and Reynolds
the defendant, was his executor. On the 23d of Nov.
1840, Wright, the trustee, and his partners, who
carried on the business of bankers in London,
stopped payment, and on the 24th of Nov., 1840,
notice of the claims of the parties interested
under the settlement of the 3d of April, 1828, of the
160 shares in the Provincial Bank of Ireland, pur-
chased in the bankrupt's name, was given to the bank
by the plaintiff's solicitor. On the 17th December,
1840, a fiat in bankruptcy issued against Wright.
At the time of his bankruptcy, Wright had 225 shares
of the capital of the Provincial Bank standing in his
name, and upon these shares the following claims were
made. First, the plaintiff claimed 160 shares upon
the ground already stated. Secondly, the Bank of
Ireland itself claimed a specific lien on 100 shares
standing in Wright's name, for securing to the Bank
the payment of 4,0001. and interest, owing by him to
the Bank ; and also a general lien upon all the shares
standing in Wright's name for whatever might be due
from Wright to the Bank. The former of these
claims was rested upon the specific contract of Jan.
1840 ; and the latter upon the proposition that bright
was holder of the shares in the Bank as a partner
with the other Shareholders, and that by the general
law of partnership those who claimed from Wright
could only be entitled to what remained, after he had
settled with his other partners. Thirdly, Walter
Blunt claimed 20 shares standing in Wright's name
alone, for which he alleged that Wright was a trustee
for him. The date assigned to this purchase was 1825,
and Blunt said that Wright being his banker, he had.
been regularly debited and accounted with in reipect
of the several instalments. Fourthly, the assignees of
Wright, by their answer, submitted that all the shares
standing in the name of Wright at the time of his
bankruptcy, were in his order and disposition, and
that the same now formed part of his estate to be ad-
ministered under the bankruptcy. The defendant
Bunyan, who had at one time set up a claim to some
of the shares standing in the name of Wright, had dis-
claimed by the record. It appeared by the pleadings
and evidence, that besides the 225. shares mentioned
there were some additional shares of 10/. each, which
had been given by way of bonus to the shareholders.
He would leave those out of the case, because his de-
cision as to the 225 would also include the others.
The result,. therefore, was, that at the time of the
bankruptcy there were 225 shares only standing in the
name of the bankrupt, whereas the number of shares
which, as against the bankrupt, different persons
claimed under specific contract, was 280 ; namely,
the plaintiffs 160, Blunt 20, and the Bank 100 ; and
in addition to these claims the Provincial Bank
claimed a lien upon the '225 shares upon
the general ground which he had stated.
It would be convenient to consider the claims in the
following order :—first, that of the assignees ; se-
condly, the claims of the plaintiff and the bank as
between each other ; thirdly, he would consider the
question as affected by Blunt's existing claim, by Bun-
yan's former claim, and by the transfer of 100 shares
in the bank to Mr. John Petty Muspratt. To begin
with the claim of the assignees. It was admitted,
and he thought properly admitted, that if a trust un-
der the deed of the 3d of April, 1828, could be esta-
blished in favour of the plaintiffs, the assignees could
not successfully contend that sixty shares claimed.
by the plaintiff were in the order and disposition of
the bankrupt as against the bank, who claimed those'
shares under Mr. Wright's letter of the Ist of Ja-
nuary, 1840. Now, with respect to the 160 shares,
he was clear that the trust attached. His reasons for
so concluding would appear from the view he took of
the claims of the bank in competition with the plain-
tiffs. The observation pressed upon him on behalf of
the defendant was, that Mr. Wright not being sole
trustee of the settlement, and the trustees not having
been authorised by trusts of the settlement, the bank
could not be considered as bound by the settlement.
To that observation he could certainly give no
weight. The reason why the name of IVright alone
was used would be found in the 29th section of
the deed of settlement of the Provincial Bank of Ire-
land, and which required that shares should stand in
give
no
the name of one proprietor only, though others, as
could jointhave a
i owners,inter ecestuique trusts,shares. or
hat
encumbrances,
g might
have
advantage, therefore, to Mr. 'Wright, or those who
claimed under him. A cestuique trust might have a
right to complain of irregularity in the execution of
the trust, and might repudiate an investment not
authorised by the trust, but the trustee who made
the investment with trust money, and for the purposes
of the trust, could not arbitrarily say, " I claim the
investment as my own," and become a creditor per-
sonally, through the breach of trust which he had
committed. In this case, it was perfectly clear that
the 160 shares were purchased with the trust moneys,
upon the trusts, and for the purpose of the settlement.
It was perfectly clear as against Mr. Wright
• ; he teas
trustee of these shares, although there was irregularity.
in the transaction. As far as the question of irregu-
larity was concerned, the case of the assignees was
precisely the same as the case of Mr. Wright would
have been. The next question which he had to con-
sider was, the order and disposition, and the question
which arose between the plaintiffs and Mr. Wright,
and this question presented more difficulty. It ap-
peared that the shares in the capital of the bank were
not as in the shares of some similar concerns, distin-
guished by number or otherwise from each other, so
that a person benefically interested in the shares
standing in the name of a trustee might be able to
say which shares were his own. The original shares
were of a certain nominal value, 100/. each, and each
shareholder appeared in the books of the bank as
the holder of so many shares only. If as to
a part he was a trustee, and as to another part a bene-
ficial owner, and from time to time he bought and sold
shares, there was nothing in the form of the transfers,
or the mode of registering, from which it could be
shown that he hadsold any specific shares rather as dis-
tinguished from other shares. The case in that respect
resembled that of a person who might purchase stock
of which he was partly trustee, and partly beneficial
owner. The whole was blended in one mass in the
Bank of Ireland, and there was nothing either in
the mode of entering the name in the form of the
transfer,.
from which' it would appear what stock he
lad sold,
what was his own, or what belonged to his
cestuique
trusts. Now in.this case, the shares from
time to time standing in Mr. Wright's name, from
the purchase of the 160 down to October, 1837, ap-
peared to have varied in amount, at one time exceed-
ing 700, but never reduced below '225. In October,
1827, the number was 225, and no change was
made from that time down to the time of the bank-
ruptcy. Upon this state of facts, having first come
to the conclusion that the 160 shares purchased for
the trust were in the first instance due to the trust,
he had no hesitation in presuming,
as against Mr.
Wright and his 'assignees, that the shares would be
transferred from time to time which he might lsw-
fully transfer ; 'and when a party did an act which
might be lawful, a Court of Justice would presume