Star.
London, England, 1827-08-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Arens R

BROWN AND ANJTHER V. HOWARD AND ANOTHER.
Mr. WHITMARSH moved for a special injunction to
restrain the defendants Irons proceeding against the
plaintiffs, as endorsers of two bills of exchange, under
the following circumstances:--Messrs. Brown were
applied to by a Mr. Lowe, the agent of Messrs. Howard,
who are manufacturers at Manchester, to sell for them
a large quantity of cotton goods. Messrs. Brown sold
the goods in consequence to Mr. Sudell, and it was a
part of the contract that the goods were to.be paid for
by two bills of exchange, one for 2,0001. and the other
for 2,3261. These bills were drawn by Mr. Sudell, and
accepted by some other parties, and being made pay-
able by the order of Messrs. Brown, were transmitted
to them for the purpose of being handed over to Messrs.
Howard, through their agent, Mr. Lowe. Messrs.
Brown, upon the receipt of the bills, offered them to
Mr. Lowe, who requested, as the bills were payable to
,their order, that they would endorse them, in order to
make them negotiable. Messrs. Brown declined, as
they were only agents in the sale, and had no other in-
terest in the transaction; but, at the request of Mr!
Lowe, and upon his undertaking that if they would put
their names upon the bills for form's sake only, they
should be indemnified, and should never be applied to,
by Messrs. Howard, they at length consented, and did
so endorse the bills. Mr. Sudell had since become em-
barrassed, and the plaintiffs, having reason to appre-
hend that they might be called upon in consequence of
their undertaking to pay the bills, now applied to the
Court, upon an affidavit of these facts, that Messrs.
Howard might be restrained (tom taking any proceed-
ings against them on the bills.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that if the facts of the
case were as stated by the affidavit, they would form a
good defence to the action at law.
Mr. ‘VHITMARSII believed they might, but as the
firm was a very large one, and as the consequences of
an arrest wai sometinses as bad as those of an execution,
his clients were desirous of avoiding so inconvenient a
proceeding. At this time, and in the present state of
i commercial credit, they did not wish to be held to bail
for a debt with which they bad nothing to do. He
thought it riglit to mention to the Court, that in the
of " Annesly and -A loki," (vol. i. Meier:des Re-
pot cs) the late Lord Chaacellor had granted an injunc•
tion to restrain the issuing execution on a warrant of
attorney ; bat as OA 4plieatfnn was made at a 'peillad
of the year similar,t4-114;his Lot &hip granted it upon
Lcoaditrin.thiiitinsesidiste notice should be given to the
;.lrfea!rsota, aid that they shauhl be at liberty to apply
Iditeing the continuance of die sit:ings, as the sabres%

Mr. Brcleairerrit (for
,the defendants in the snit)
said, that the Court being about to carrrinto effect the
bequests of a will under which hist eierts claimed,
Mr. E. G. Wakefield and another, a Mrs. Patten, applied
to the Court to have the bequests impounded, on the
ground that the will under which the defendants claimed
was • a forgery, and that the person repre.ented to
have made this will died intestate. The Court thinking
it a great -hardship that the defendants, who tract
received a pan of the fund, should be entirely debar eel
from it whsle the qnestion respecting the genuineness r
the will was being tried, ordered that they should still
enjoy it ; but that they %horrid enter into securities for -
what they hail and might receive. When the question
respecting the will came to be tried, which it was with
the most vexatious delay on the eon of the. plaintiffs,
the charge which they had made &boot the will being
forged turned out to be perfectly frivolous and withone
foundation. The Ecclesia,tical Court decided that the
' will was good ; and he (Mr. Bickersteth) had rmw ter
apply to the Court for costs in the suit ; his clients hay.
ing been put to rest expense, both in entering into se•
curities and also in trying the validity of the will.
Mr. HICALD, Mr. Hotter, and Mr. WAIGETIILLD,ors
the other side, contended that the Court could know'
niitliingef the charge respecting the will being trier*
lout . ft could not take into its consideration the pica•
ceedings of the Ecclesiastical Conn r and all that it
could know was that the plaintiffs had made a charge
which they had not been able to support. This proved
nothing, because in every litigated point one party mint
be wrong; but it did not foflow from the circumstance
of one partrbeing beaten, which must always (tappets, -
that the,ease of that party was frivolous and whoHir
without foendation. During the whole prOgress of the
cause, it had newer been intimated, either by anything
said or done, who was to pay the costs. The presomp.
thin, therefore, was, that the Judge before whom it was
heard, did not entertain the idea of making the plairt.
tiffs pay the cogs.
•
The Vice.CIIANCELLOR said, that thegreac diffircuhy
which he had to contend with was, that the costs intim
cause had not been reserved; and when costs were nos
reserved, it was a rule, both in law and equity, nein)
fix them upon the plaintiffs. Upon this_eiew of-the
question, therefore, he did not at present.see Low he
could grant Mr. Itickersteth's application. He would,
however, read over the whole of the affidavits, and then
pronounce definitively on the question.