Star.
London, England, 1822-12-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, DECEMBER IL
XX.PARTE RUSSEI4I., IN THIC MATTER OF ROlll, A

BANKRUPT.
This was a Petition to stay the certificate, on the
ground that the bankrupt had practised collusion
with one Turner, and one Henry Ackland, in con-
tracting the debt due to the Petitioner ; all the par-
ties being aware that they were unequal to the pay-
ment of the same, in amount £l2O.
The Lotto CHANCELLOR could not understand to
what purpose this Petition was now brought on. The
question for his 'Lordship, in dealing with the certi-
ficate which lay before him for signature, was, whe-
ther or not, since the commission of bankrupt had
issued, the defendant had complied fully with the
Statutes of bankruptcy ? The bankrupt might have
behaved very improperly in contracting this debt,
or he might not; the Petitioner might have been
treated very ill by the bankrupt, or be mi*ht have
been very foolish and incautious in allowing such
parties to contract such a debt: but unless there was
some complaint of non-compliance with the laws of
bankruptcy (and there was nothing of the kind al-
leged), the Petition must be discharged.
LLOYD AND OTHERS V. SIR H. ST. PAUL.
The Lotto CHANCELLOR said, that in this case,
which was a motion to restrain the defendant from
working coal-mines belonging to the Wednesbury-
hall estate, in Staffordshire, claimed as a right re-
served for the plaintiffs in the conveyance in 1708,
and also to require Mr. Vernon to produce the deed
of conveyance and others which he held in trust. It
would be recollected that he had advised the ques-
tion on the injunction to be postponed until it should
be argued and seen whether or not the plaintiffs had
a right to the production and inspection of the deeds.
He desired to be clearly understood that in his opi-
nion the heating and determining this first question
would leave the question as to the injunction entirely
free and unprejudiced. The question before the
Court was to be considered—first, with respect to the
principles which respected the rights of Sir H. St.
Paul and his family ; 2dly, according to the princi-
ples which respected the lessees under him, and the
property which they so held ; and whether, in case
of the right claimed by the plaintiff being esta-
blished, the Court would feel inclined, after what
those lessees had been allowed to do, to proteed upon
a short mode to restore the plaintiff to his right, and
thereby work considerable injury, if not injustice to
those lessees. The immediate question of to-day,
however, was confined to the production, or not pro-
ducing, of the deeds by Mr. Vernon. When that
question should be determined, the Court would be
better able to consider and decide the other questions
pending on it. Confining himself, then, strictly to
that one question, he would only state in passing,
that by the role in the case of Norway and Rowe,
the present case did not fall within the prohibition
there laid down, of using affidavits in support of
title, because the original title of the defendant was
net 'Asserted ; it was declared by himself to be un-
known ; and the facts could not be understood
until the deeds should be produced, to which the
plaintiffs appealed to certify all the titles com-
prised under them. The Lord Chancellor then
recited the main facts relating to the cause from the
first deed of conveyance, down to the present suit.
Upon all the sales and conveyances, the plaintiffs al-.
leged that the property of the coals and minerals had
been reserved for them, with the right of digging and
searching for them, upon the payment of certain
rates of compensation, agreed upon and expressed in
the deeds, as would appear whenever the deeds should
be produced. In their answer to the amended bill,
Sir H. St. Paul and his wife denied that they. or
either of them, have in their possession or power any
such deeds, papers, or writings, as were mentioned
in the bill. They admitted the working of coal-
mines, lime-stone, &c. upon the estate, which they
claimed as part of their possession. His Lordship
could scarcely understand the answer, where it seemed
to state that the custom of the country was such as to
make void reservations of coal and minerals, in con-
veyances of the land. They stated a clear series of
acts of ownership to prove their right to the lands,
which must be kept in contradistinction from the
rights of the mines under them. Ile said it with all
proper repect for Sir 11. St. Paul, but his answer
amounted to just nothing at all, as it regarded this
point of the case, which was, whether there had
been a reservation of coal and minerals, or not.—
The answer averred that be bad no deed-, in his pos-
session, hut did not give the Court the least informa-
tion of the import of- the statement in the amended
bill, nor inform the Court how they might get at the
contents of the deeds, which alone could enable the
Court to decide. Mr. Vernon said in his answer,
that he had some deeds in his possession, but he did
not think proper to look into them, and could there-
fore set forth no information which could be useful
to the cause. That was the whole import of the ori-
ginal answer ; one of them could not, and the other
would not, look at the deeds. His Lordship would
not deny but that, with respect to some of the lands,
such conduct might probably be proved, as would
amount to a waver or cession of the reserved right:
in others, the defendants might have no proof that
they had acquired such a title. Alt this must depend
upon the contents of the deeds, and the conduct of
the parties subsequently. Mr. Vernon had declared
that his trust was at an end, but that he held the
deeds. If his trust had not substantially ceased, still
he could be no party in these proceedings to the ex-
tent of refusing all information of the contents of the
deeds, so long as others, besides the objects of his
trust, claimed to hold something under the deeds in
his possession : but being on his own acknowledg-
ment denuded of his trust in substance, he still was
not so far divested, while he retained the deeds, but
that those parties might call upon hint to surrender
deeds upon which they grounded their titles of re-
servation. His Lordship had considerable experience
of cases of coal-mines, having much intimate know-
ledge of the state of property in one of the principal
coal counties. He admitted that there might have
been Brea: folly, in cases of rights reserved, in net
having a duplicate of the original conveyance exe-
cuted, considering all the accidents to which the suc-
cession of property was subject; but that folly would
not have the effect of taking away a title which was
contained in the conveyance, because the party
had still an interest in the single deed of convey-