Star.
London, England, 1827-08-06 00:00:00

LAW. INTELLIGENCE.
_....-.

COURT OP CHANCERY, August 4.
tie RR THORNLIKE, A lAWERUPT.
Mr. Momtacr appeared on a petition precebted by
one of the assignees of his bankrupt, praying the peg.
mission of the Court that he might be discharged Loam
the office of assignee, and permitted to bid for fist eivity
of redemption is certain property -of the bankrupt's
about to be sold, and of which he (the assignee) was
already the mortgagee.
Mr. Roots, for the other assignees, who had ►een
served with notice of this petition, did not object to this
application, but doubted whether the Court could relax
the rule which had been held to prevail respecting bank-
rupts assignees.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was not clear that the peti-
tion could be granted. The Court had laid down a
rule that neither solicitors, nor commissioners, nor as-
signees of bankrupts, could be permitted to purchase
any of their effects. The reason for this rule was every
spend sod good one. The persons thee prohibited might,
by their situations, become possessed of knowledge re-
specting the bankrupt's affairs which no one else could
obtain, and thus they might be enabled to make bar-
gains highly advantageous to themselves, and propor-
tionably injurious to the creditors; He did not see
why the petitioner, being mortgagee, should therefore
be placed in a better situation than any other assignee.
Mr. MONTAGU said, that in this instance the assig-
nee offered to divest himself of the fiduciary situation
in which he had been placed by the election of the cre-
ditors. _ _

The LORD CHANCILLOR observed, that bees:mid not
divest himself of the knowledge he might have ob-
tained.

After some further discussion, it was arranged that
the consent of the creditors should be first obtained,
and the petitioner mentioned again osia future day.

COMET AND OTHERS O. HARRIS AND OTHERS.
Mr. Time appeared in support of the petition of
Messrs. Willett, Harris, and Kemble, and Mr. Robert-
son, the receiver appointed by the Court, praying that
a sum of 10,00 W. which had been paid into the hands
of the Accountant General, should be paid out of
Court. The sum was one alleged to have been impro.
perly paid by the receiver, on account of expenses in-
curred in repairing the theatre. On the part of the
petitioners it was contended that the payments had
been made necessarily ; and that if they had not been
made, the theatre could not have been opened.
Mr. HZALD was heard on the same side, and Mr.
SHADWILL opposed the motion.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he was obliged to rise
at half-past three, and the remainder of the argument
was postponed until Monday.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, MGM 4.
CISILDI v. KAYE.
Mr. Hostas, for the plaintiff, applied for an injunc-
tion under the following circumstances. The plaintiff,
Mr. William Childe, in conjunction with some other
persons, entered in the year 1818 into a certain specu-
lation, and they assumed the title of the Cliffdown Min-
ing Company. The shares of the Company were to be
8,200. Some time after the formation of the Company,
Mr. Childe and the other Directors executed a power
of attorney, by which they enabled the clerk of the
Company (Mr. Henry Clark) to draw for such sums of
money for the use of the Company as any three of the
Directors might think proper to authorize ; and in Yip
tue of the said power of attorney several sums had been
drawn for, and paid out of the funds of the Company.
The name of the plaintiff, with those of two other of the
Directors, appeared as authorizing and approving the
said draughts. In the year 1820, the plaintiff sold out
all the shares he possessed in the Company, and ceased
of course to be a Director. He informed the defendants
glwere the bankers of the Company, by letter, that
ees no longer a Director of the Company, and that
they were no longer to consider him liable to them, un-
der the power of attorney, for any debts of the Com-
pany. At the time of the sending this letter the plain-
tiff alleged, and the defendants admitted, that the ba-
lance due from the Company to the bankers was only
1201. This balance had afterwards been diitharged out
of other funds of the Company paid into the banker's;
bat there was now doe to the old firm of Kaye and Co.
and to the dew firm which had been lately formed un-
der the same name, a sum amounting to no less than
3,5001. For that sum the defendants now sought to make
the plaintiff liable, and the plaintiff therefore filed the
present bill, by which he prayed that the defendants
,might be restrained from bringing any action or actions
at law against him on account of his connexion with the
Cliffdown Mining Company; that he might be declared
not to be liable for any debts due or expenses incurred
by the said Company, or otherwise than as an original
Director ; that if is appeared that he was in any way
liable for such debts and expenses, he might be indem-
nified, according to the deed of settlement, out of the
effects of the said Company ; and that, for such pur-
pose, the defendants and trustees might be compelled to
render bim an account of all receipts and assets in their
hands. The Learned Counsel contended it was clear
that the power of attorney had been equitably, if not
legally, revoked by the letter whtch the plaintiff had
sent to the defendants. It was not pretended that any
of the shareholders were liable, but merely the Direc-
tors; and he believed that the- simple point in the pre-
' sent case was, whether the plaintiff had any equity, or
whether the whole question must be determined at law?
The Vrtz-Coatucacton said, that was exactly what
he wished to arrive at—whether the plaintiff had any
equity ?
Mr. REAM said that would appear from the terms of
the deed of settlement. By that deed it was agreed that
the sums accruing from the shares should stand at the
banker's in the names of the Directors in the usual man-
ner; that the accounts should be settled every half year;
and that if by death or resignation the number of the
Directors should ever be reduced to seven, others should
be appointed in their place. By another, the 58th ar-
ticle, it was agreed that the Directors should be held
harmless for all costs and charges to which they might
be put in managing the affairs of the Company. By
'his art•cle, therefore, supposing even that the power of
attorney was not legally revoked, the plaintiff must be
held harmless out of the funds of the Company, of which
' he (Mr. Heald) understood there were plenty ; or, if
' not, that the other Directors ought to be bound to make
their contributions towards defraying the claim of the
I defendants. The Learned Counsel then read two letters
which had been addressed to the defendants—one from
the plaintiff, revok•ng the power of attorney; and
, another from the Directors of the Company, init.rming
. them of the resignation of Mt. Childe and another ; of
the appointment of two others, Messrs. Gill and Law.
rence, in their places ; and begging their attention to
ache signatures of these two Gentlemen. After observing

that monies had subsequently been paid. tusder the sig-
nature of these two Gentlemen, Mr. Heskisepeated that
he was doubtful whether this application ought to have
been made. or whether a Court of Law was the proper
place in which the question should be tried. His client,
hdnever, had been advised to come there, in order that

[ [
if he should be beaten at law, and then come to a Coors
lof Equity for relief, he might not be turned round by
it being asked, why he did not apply to a Court of
Equity at first.
1 The Vice CHANCILLOR saw no reason why the plain.
tiff should come to that Court. If he saw any plain
ground for liability on the part of the plaintiff in a Court
of Law, he might decide otherwise.
Mr. Hearn—Then your Honour does not think that
we ought to be relieved here?
The Vice CHANCILLOR said it was not for him to
confound the legal distinctions that prevailed between
Courts of Law and Courts of Equity; but he thought
that this injunction could not stand. If he appointed a
servant to pay money for him, and then told the parties
by letter that the servant was no longer authorised by
him so to do, he did not see what remedy any one could
have against him for any transactions• of the servant
subsequent to such notice. _ _

Mr: litALD—Then the case is dismissed?
Mr. SUODEN—And with costs?
The Vice CHANCILLOR—.NO, not with costs.

Mr. SiODZW—As they have got an opinion from
your Honour, I think they ought to pay for it.
The Vice CHANCELLOR observed, that it was not
usual to give costs in such cases, and directed that the
costs should stand as costs in the cause.