Star.
London, England, 1821-11-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 17. ,I
Mr. HEALD, this day, proceeded with his ergs.
anent in the cause, ,'the Attorney-General v. the.
skinners' Company." Mr. SUDDEN followed, oaf,
had not concluded at three o'clock in the aftersooa,
when the Court rose.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER 17•
COOKS D. COLLINGRIDOL

Mr. HART said, that this case, although compre-
hending a great mass of narative and accounts, lay.
in a very narrow compass. The facts were these:—
John Cooke, the plaintiff, was the residuary legatee
of his father William Cooke, deceased, and the de-
fendants, Collingridge and Co. were co-partners in
trade with the sad- William Cooke, and had subse-
quently to his decease carried on the business of
coach makers in Liquorpond-street. The object of
the bill filed by the plaintiff was to shew, that the
partnership was not so concluded upon the decease
of William Cooke, as to deprive the residuary legatee
of his fair and full participation in the profits and
capital of the business after his father's death. The
testator, William Cooke, in 1805, entered into busi-
ness as a coachmaker with Thomas and James Coiling-
ridge, and Messrs. Rowley and Mansfield. The ori-
ginal agreement took place in 1803, and on the 15th
of. September, 1812, the partnership articles were re-
newed for the term of seven years, to commence from
the Ist of January, 1811. The capital for the trade,
to be equally supplied by the partners, was £40,555,
and the profits were to be divided in equal propor-
tions. There was also this stipulation, that if any
one or more of the partners died during the copart-
nership, his or their representatives should, for the
remainder of the term, enjoy the same interest as the
deceased would have enjoyed during his life-time.—
It was at the same time arranged, that the capital
should not be broken in upon inconveniently for the
general purposes of the business.
The VICR-CEIANCELLOR asked, what .stipulation
was made for adjusting the affairs of the copartners
at the expiration of the term of seven years?
Mr. HART replied, that everything was to be sold,
and the produce equally divided. The profits of the
trade were estimated at £14,000 a-year' or £lO,OOO,
as had been subsequently mentioned. The testator,
on the 22d of August, 1815, met with an accident,
which be soon after died. He made a will on the
of the same month, by which he ordered that
ten thousand pounds should be vested in the 3 per
cents. for the benefit of his wife, and the remainder
of his property, whatever it should eventually prove,
he devised in shares of 1-Sd each to his two tons and
one daughter. The partnership was carried on as
usual, in Liquorpond-street, until the 31st of Decem-
ber, 1817. The plaintiff, one of the sons, was em-
ployed by the firm ; his brother, William Cooke,
was also there : but the latter, having married the '
daughter of one of the surviving copartners, was'
kept in the concern ; the plaintiff was not so forto-
nate as to retain his situation there. When the ar-
ticles of partnership had expired, the copartners gave
notice to the plaintiff that they meant to sell off the
business, and they stated, the valuators whom they
meant to employ ; but he dissented from their plan;
they, however, pursued it ; and when the sale was
made, the ho iness was transferred by the copart-
ners, who became the nominal arrangers of the trans-
action, to William Cooke already mentioned. Now,

he' did not mean to say that the claim of property
which the plaintiff had was at any time in jeopardy,
quite the reverse being the fact, as all the parties were
solvent; but what he complained of was, that the
sale was, in point of fact, a transfer of the business to
William Cooke, in such a manner as to deprive the
plaintiff of the full benefit which he should have de-
rived from his share as residuary legatee, bad a dif-
ferent mode of disposal been adopted. In September,
1719, the late firm stated that they had made great
exertions to collect in the debts due to the partner-
ship • they had collected in 1:01.8,000; and there re-
mained due, £.55,000 good debts, .C3OOO bad, and
1.9500 doubtful. The whole question, however,
'turned upon the right of the parties to sell as they
had done, so as to give the benefit of that sale to
William Cooke.

The VICIrCIIANCELLOR asked whether in the sale
anything was set down for good-will ?
Mr. HEALD (for the defendants) replied, £ll,OOO.
Atter some further conversation between the Coun-
sel, the Vtca-CHAnICvLLOR obseived. that he must
have the articles of partnership out of Court, to ego,,
mine how far arrangements for the disposal of good-
will were made by the original parties. If good.
will was not specifically stipulated for in the articles
of agreement, the plaintiff could not have a title to it.
Mr. lICALD said, that ip this case everything had
been done to make the sale realize the utmost for all
those concerned.

The case stands over until the papers are examined
by the rice-Chancellor.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 17.

The Court, this day, gave judgment in a case of
some importance as regards auctioneers.
The plaintiff in this case had purchased, at the
Auction Mart, one of the annuities granted under the
56th of the late King, by the Waterloo Bridge Com-
pany.. The defendant was the auctioneer who sold
the annuity in question. The pt inted particular only
described the property as an annuity granted by the
Company, and plaintiff purchased it under a suppo-
sition that it was an annuity for life. But after
having paid his purchase-money, he discovered it was
only an annuity for a term of years, or redeemable
at the pleasure of the grantors. He then brought his
action against the auctioneer, who, at the nisi, con-
tended, that he was not liable, as he was not bound
to give the purchaser information beyond what the
particular conveyed, and that it was the duty of the
purchaser to have informed himself of what descrip-
tion the property was which he was about to purchase.
The point was reserved for the opinion of the Court,
who now decided that the auctioneer was bound to
state to the purchaser aU the information which he
possessed, whether required to do so or net, if be
vias aware that his printed particular wassiz
snake to theerfect,
otherwise. he would be liable to
purchaser any loss which he might sustain in conse-
quence of such information being withheld.—Judg-
VIM for the plaintiff,
The Court of Common Pleas sat till half past one,
hut to motion of the least public intereat occurred.