Star.
London, England, 1824-02-05 00:00:00

HOME CIRCUIT.

Before the Chief Baron, Sir WILLIAM ALEXANDER and Mr. Jus-
tice Bur.
lIIRTTORDSIIIRE, Thursday, March 4, at Hertford,
Essxx, Monday, March 8, at Chelmsford.
Karr, Monday, March 15. at Maidstone.
Sussrx, Monday, March 42, at Horsham.
SURREY, Thursday, March t:5, at kingston.upon-Thames.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, FEBRUARY 4.
NEAPOLITAN LOAN.DOLORET U. ItOrIibCHILD--•
DEMURRER.

Mr. PEMBERTON stated, that it was scarcely possible
for a question of mere commercial importance to be;
disposed of than the present. The demurrer was founded'
upon two grounds; first, that a Court of Equity could.:
not in such a case interfere; and secondly, that even if
it were, the plaintiff had, by his own shewing, so con-'
ducted himself as to disentitle himself to all relief. The
prayer I the petition was, first, that the plaintiff should
have his contract as made with Mr. Rothschild per-
formed ; and secondly, that if not specifically performed,
he should be indemnified for his losses by this contract.l
It appeared from the Bill, that Mr. Rothschild had con-
tracted with the Neapolitan Government for the ad-
vance of a sum of money, and that the Neapolitan Go-
vernment had granted to him an annuity, saleable as he
might direct; he did in consequence issue certain Scrip
receipts, the form of which was inserted in the schedule.

In the course of December, 1822, several of these re-
ceipts came into the hands of the plaintiff, not pur-
chased from Mr. Rothschild, but obtained from persons
who had previously purchased them from him. By the
terms of the contract the balance was to be paid by the
Ist of February, 1823. However, Mr. Rothschild pro-
posed that the amount should be paid by monthly in-
stalments, the last of which was to become due in Au-
gust, 1823. With these terms the plaintiff did not com-
ply. ; and on the sth of February, 1823, Mr. Rothschild
gay:, notice that these receipts would be rendered void,
unless by a week from that time the contract was per-
formed. Until April, 1823 no application was made on
the part of the plaintiff to fulfil his terms of the contract.
There is cre two objections to the prayer of the plaintiff's
NIL-Ist. That a Court of Equity could not interfere to
enforce an contract for the delivery of stock. The se-
cond objection which existed-to it was, that where a party
came into a Court of Equity to enforce a contract, the
remedy must be mutual; h: re, however, it was not mu-
tual, for the sale was made upon certain ter ms, provided'
they agreed to it. There was another most important
question connected with this subject; whether a party •
purchasing under a contract to pay on a particular day
had a right to say, " I will not come forward by such a
time, but I will subsequently come forward and adopt
the contract." He contended that time was the essence
of this contract, and that the lapse in the present case
ought to he considered fatal to the plaintiff.
Mr. Summs; on the other side contended, that to
the first question upon which Mr. Pemberton had ob-
served, he admitted that it was a question now before
the Court for its consideration, as to the specific per-
formance of the delivery of stock. Bat he contended,
with respect to time being the essence of the contract,
Alr. Rothschild had by his {own act abandoned and
waived it. The last advertisement to which Mr. Pem-
berton had referred was stated to have been inserted on
the sth of February, but on the 12th of February an
advertisement was also inserted by Mr. Rothschild,
stating that he would hold the parties to their con-
tract unless their part of the contract was performed
by a certain time.

VICE-CI aNcELt.ort said, it appearcd to him this
case must turn on the advertisen.eta ui the 19th of he
brirary. Might not time most mateiially affect the va-
luation of such a subject ai this? It might; but the
effect of the advertisement of' the 12111 of February took
this case out of the general principle; fur in that case
the defendant declared that he won't hold them respon-
sible for their contract. It appeared to him that Mr.!
Rothschild did under that advertisement make a pledge
which a Court of Equity would enforce. -I shall cer-
tainly look most carefully into this question ; not for
myself as to the proposition the purpose of satisfying
that time, generally speaking, is not in such cases the
essence of the contract, for as to that I entertain no
doubt; but I shall anxiously read this Bill, to see wire-
ther there are any collateral allegations bete on which
the plaintiff is entitled to an answer,
PREROGATIVE COURT, FEB. a.