Star.
London, England, 1829-07-17 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Jo' 16.

IMPORTANT DECISION-BROOK MAII V. ROTIISCIIILD.
The Vice-Chancellor proceeded, on taking his seat, to
give judgment, as appointed in this case. It appears (said
his Honour) that the plaintiff was, in the month of May,
1818, entitled to 20,0001. French rentes, and there was
some sort of communication between him and the defen-

dant, Mr. Rothschild, who carries on business in this
country, and is also a partner with his brother in Paris,
carrying on business there under the firm of Rothschild,
Brothers, and Co. It is represented that the plaintiff was
induced, by a letter written by the defendant, to give an
order for the sale of the French rentes. The defendant
writes a letter in answer on the 24th of May, requesting
a sale of part, upon the receipt of which the defendant
does sell, as he represents, the whole of the 20,000 French
rentes. On the day following the defendant writes a
letter to the plaintiff, which appears to me to be a direct
and plain representation that Mr. Rothschild had, in pur- '
seance of the letter of the 24th, made a sale of 20,000
rentes. Now it appears as a fact that there was no sale
whatever of the 20,000 French rentes, but that Mr. Roths-
child took the 20,000 French rentes to himself, giving
credit to the defendant for 11,0001. and a fraction, which
would be the price of the rentes at the price quoted in the
defendant's letter, and invested that eleven thousand pounds
and a fraction in Prussian bonds. Now the first question
upon this case is, whether that transaction with regard to
the French rentes, shall stand ? And my deliberate
opinion upon that transaction is, that it ought not to stand.
It appears from his answer that he had another transac-
tion respecting French stock on that very day, and that
he himself sold, I think, a parcel of French stock at a
less price than that which he took to himself, in respect
of taking to himself the plaintiff's 20,000 rentes. But
the general principle which this court has always acknow-
ledged and applied must be maintained in this case,
namely, that the person who is the agent to sell, if ho ac-
cept the agency, is bound to sell, and is not at liberty to
take to himself the stock, giving the party an equivalent
for it. Now my opinion is, that an individual has a right
to complain of a transaction in which an agent does not
do that which he has said he would do, and represents he
has done, and in a case where ho has done quite a diffe-
rent thing. It appetirs from what the plaintiff states in
his bill, that in point of fact there were 14,0001. in
Prussian bonds purchased, because he himself states, that
in the months of September and October, 1818, 14,0001.
Prussian bonds were delivered to him ; and of those
14,0001. bonds it must be taken that the plaintiff in some
way disposed of 12,0001. No complaint is made of the
12,0001. of bonds, and there is an express statement of
the circumstances which attended two of these bonds

of the 14,0001. It appears to me, that upon this trans-
action the plaintiff is entitled, at his option, to have
the present price of 20,000 French rentes, or to
have that amount of rentes invested in his name ; he
repaying to the defendant the 11,0001. and a fraction,
the sum which he was credited on account with
Mr. Rothschild; and I think he must repay that with
five per cent. interest. The next part of this case re-
lates to the purchase of some Prussian bonds. It ap-
pears that about the month of June, 1818, the defendant
recommended the plaintiff to purchase some Prussian
bonds, and that he agreed to purchase from Mr!
Rothschild 40,0001. of Prussian bonds at 82, 5,000/. at
81, and 5,0001. at 81 per cent. For the Prussian
bonds, however, the plaintiff was not able to pay ; and
the effect of the transaction} was, that the price of the
bonds should be advanced by the defendant to the
plaintiff, the plaintiff giving his promissory note for the
amount. The transaction was carried on according to
this understanding, because there was a purchase made—
apparently made, of 50,0001. Prussian bonds, for which
the broker made out a charge, I think, of 41.6001. and
the plaintiff gave his cheque to the broker for that sum.
The plaintiff then gave his promissory note to the defen-
dant for the 41,0001. and a fraction. In October, an
account was made out, by which it appeared that the
whole amount of the bonds- at that time, 67,0001.. were
sold at seventy-five per cent. making a considerable loss
to the plaintiff, as he had purchased them, on the
average, at eighty-one per cent. With this produce the
promissory notes for 41,000/. and a fraction, and 85,0001.
were cancelled, but the one for the 4,000/. and a fraction
remained ; but a further deposit, greater than covered
the 4,0001. was made : this was likewise sold, the note
cancelled, and the surplus accountad for to the plaintiff.
The question here then is (said his Honour) whether this
transaction shall stand ? In other words, whether the
plaintiff is not entitled to have paid to him such sums of
money as he has lost in the way I have described ? Now
I apprehend it was absolutely necessary, in order to sup-
port the transaction, that there should have been a bona
fide purchase of the .50,0001. bonds ; but I think it ap-
pears most distinctly, from what the defendant himself
represents, that there was no such bona fide purchase. I
think there ought to have been a selection of the 50,0001.
bonds, an appropriation, and a transfer of the numbers of
the bonds to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, must
in this respect have the accounts opened, so as to have
repaid to him the losses he may have from time to time
sustained. In the end of 1818 and the beginning of
1819 there was an agreement that the plaintiff should pia-
dome a large amount of French rentes, and representa-
tions at various times were made, stating that in the
whole 115,000 French rentes were purchased.
The plaintiff charged by his bill, that the whole repre-
sentatiens of these sales and purchases were fallacious

-. ,

and fictitious. The defendant throughout his answer
did not venture to traverse the allegation ; the onus lay
on him to disprove the accusation, which he had failed to
do ; on the contrary, from the correspondence it was
evident that there was something Mr. Rothschild had
thought it right to caution his house in Paris to keep
concealed. Here, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to
relief to the amount of all the sums he had lost or ought
to have received, at five per cent. interest. Considering,
on the whole, the nature of the circumstances, the judg-
ment of the Court was, that the plaintiff should have the
relief mentioned in the course of this statement, and also
that his costs should be paid to him by the defendant,
Mr. Rothschild.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH. JOLT 16.
BAYLIS V. COOPER AND COPE.

This was an action of trover brought by the plaintiff,
a pawnbroker, residing in Aldersgate-street, to recover
the possession of some plate, or a recompense for the
same, it having been taken from his house after he had
advanced money upon it, by the defendants, one of whom
is the City Marshal, upon authority of a search warrant,
under the pretence (as it was alleged) that the plaintiff
had obtained it by fraud. The Attorney-General, who
appeared for the plaintiff, after several witnesses had
been examined, said he was afraid he must be nonsuited,
on account of the absence of one of the shopmen of the
plaintiff, who was present when the money was ad-
vanced. Lord Tenterden observed, that it would be the
best course to pursue, as the plaintiff would then be
enabled to bring another action. The plaintiff was ac-
cordingly nonsuited.

GODWIN V. FOULKES.

This action was brought to recover the sum of 211.
which the plaintiff had lent to the defendant, a Methodist
Clergyman, residing at Bishop Stortford. The defence
set up was, that the money had been lent to the de-
fendant's mother ; but this could not be proved, and the
plaintiff obtained a verdict for the amount due.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 11.

iliwk.