Star.
London, England, 1828-11-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 15.
000DACRI V. WILKINSON.
Mr. PEPYS touted this to be an appeal from a decision
of the Vice• Chancellor. A bill had been filed against
the defendant, f. .r the specific performance, on his part.
:s•f a contract he had made for the purchase of the a'.
ivinwson of Presteign, at the pi ice of 7.0001. It had been
one of the conditions of the contract that the purchaser
-should require no other title than that which had been
derived from Lord Oxford and his. trustees. The de-
fendant, in his answer,"alleged that the title was imper-
fect, and that the -contract being in violation of the
smute against champtity and maintenance. was illegal.
. The Vice Chancellor, adopting this view, dismissed the
bill with costs. and against that decision
_the present

appeal was brought. The Counsel contended that the
conditions of the contract bound the purchaser; that the
title was known,not to be clear,and having been already
irlietd.by a person.oho had been in sreaty for it, the
vender guarded against the -recurrence of such objec-,
tine by engloging.only to give such a title as be could
dei ice from Lord Ottfard.
Mt. Kottooe was heard on the same side.
Mr. Swum supported the original decree. He said
that the chow-son tee question was sold by Lord Oxford
to Mr. Burt, betweeen whom there had been a sort of
`interchange of property, of which this formed oneof the
..items. The reason for which the pprch,sser disputed
.the contract•was, that there was no title at all, and that
all that had passed between Lord Orford.and Mr. Burt
bad been for the purpq.e of concealing the defect. If
the purchaser had paid the price which he had agreed
to give, he would have lost his money, and hue had
nothing in the place of it. The objections on which he
relied had been fairly raised, and could not be met on
the other aide; one of them was, that the trustee of
Lord Oxford, by eoucut ring in the sale, bad been guilty
of a breach of trust, and that a Court of Equity would
not on that ground, if it were the only one, as it was
• hot, decree the performance of the contract. Bat the
• main objection was, that the statue was against it. The
title was known to•be def c•ive, and it bad been trans-
. ferred to a third party only that the litigation to which
that defect might give rise should be more successfully
eunduc• rd.
The LORD CHANCRLLOR asked if the venders had
given the purchaser the same tide they received from
Lord Oxford?
Mr. SUODIN did not know ; but he knew they had
failed to show bow the post< came iano 1.00 Oxford':
hands. The deed: they bad produced recited others
which the, could or would-not produce.
t, TiN tcKY .follow ed. and Mr. PRPTS having replie.',
• The LORD CIIAROCLLOR said he would look into
the papers, and give hi, judgment obottly.
COURT OP KING'S BENCH, Wssensenes, Nov. 15.
MCCURRY V. JONRS, LLOYD, AIM CO.
The plaintiff, a awteebast in 'Bootee, in America, ton-•
signed a eargo.of flour to London, *nil -the master of
the ship skew bills of exchange for the produce, which
we•e accepted by the cousimnoes or persons who pur-
chased the .floor, awl indorsed by •the amasser to the
plaintiff, and by him so a 01r. Williams, his agent se
London, the indotseissent-beirag in this form---" Pay so
Williams or order, fur my use.' Williams discounted.
. she Lill with dre'clefeuslints, who were bis hookers, ono.
they paid hem the nthney•arthass the discolour,. Arad soon
of er he become bars/rept. The bills, when due,.Wele
paid by the accektors to the defendarits. The plaintiff
tor.aglit his action against the defertolants on one. of the
bills fur 1,4661. anal lard a aerdict,,subjeat to a Ix" for,
e opinion of the Court, with-liberty -to turn it •into a
speci,l verdict.
The case was argued this .Aay tty M;. PoLtocic for
tl:e plaintiff, and Mr. Naas for the dtfendants; and
• 'Mr. PARKS contended that the •ourds "to my use,"
u‘earit nothing more than put the proceeds to my. ag•
C 01164.,

LOA TILSTAMDiII was of opinion that in tbis case the,
plaintiff-ought to recover. Moe were already autho-
rities in the books for special or restricted indorsements;
and by this inslorsemea warping wassiven op the back
of the bill it.elf that the proceeds ought to be paid to
she use of the plaintiff. and to iltis oseuitly ; arid *then
the defendants, knowing this, discounted thebEls, and
p the money to the use of Williams, they %vete ear.
ties to the aPaspplie.ation, and Ausaverashle tp the plain-
tiff. it was of greet use in cnntruersiakransactions
that there shoed be' limited indotoments of this kind,
for they would peseta a lading man from raising
money for his own purpches on such bills, to the pre-'
judice of the first indorser. If Williams had really
applied the proceeds to the use of the plaintiff, the as

signee of the.bill would be d;schalsed; betas he did
n,t, the assignee is still liable.
Mr. Justice BATLSY concur its'. If the plaintiff ha l'
sent a private letter to Williams to apply the proceeds
of the bill to his use, and Williams had endorsed -the!
bill to another wishoot any notice of the private order,:
and nothing appeared on the face of the bill itself butt
the general indorsement in the ordinary course of hego-
ciation, then the plaintiff could only look to Williams ;.
and if Williams had only waited until the bill became.
due, and had received the money from the acceptor,.
' probably, in that case, the plaintiff could only have'
looked m Williams; but -here the defendants had die-
coonted the bill, and applied the looney to the use of
Williams, with distinct notice from the bill itself that
this was a misapplication.

ASSIONESS clr FOZTON o. SHAMA.

Roston, the bankrupt, was part owner of a ship tr hich
was fitted out for the whale trade, and returned with a
cargo of. blubber. The blubber was deposited in a
warehouse kept by the defendant for all the partn,rs,,
and there it was boiled, and the oil divided according
in the several shares. and 29 tuns were set apart for
Futon. The usual way of dealing was, that each party
was at liberty to take his share from the warehouse
when.he thought proper, except notice was given to
the warehouseman. that that party had ,nit paid hip
share of the expenses of the outfit of the ship. Forton
had not paid his share of these expenses, but he got 20
tuns of the oil from the warehouse and ti en became
bankrupt. The assignees applied to the warehouseman
,for the other nine tuns of Foxton's oil, but the defendant
refused, having get the proper notice not to deliver it.
up, as the other partners had a lien.upon it for Fusion's,
share of the outfit expenses. At the trial the plaintiffs
had a verdict, subject to a case for the opinion of the
Court.

The case was this day argued by Mr. ALDIRSON for
the plaintiffs, and Mr. PARKe for the defendant.
The Court? held, that neither the bankrupt nor his
assignees had a right to receive his aliquot slate of the,
oil, until he paid his aliquot share of the expeate, ; and
as to the other putt, the owners basing petn3itted Fax.,
ion to receive 20 tans, they had no occa.mn to jutertoye
with that, the other nine tuns being sufficient for th.ir
purpose.—Verdict set aside, and A nonsuit entered.