Star.
London, England, 1828-03-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Idraca 13.
JACKSON V. BOURNE.
In this case, which stood for judgment upon the
question of costs,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that he had on a pre-
•ious day given his judgment, except as to the costs;
for that purpose he had looked over with great atten-
tion all-the depositions, and also the decree Mai, and he
thought it would be better not to state what the incli-
nation of his mind was upon those depositions, as to
the costs, until after the Master had made his report.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Iklssca 15.
IMPORTANT TO BANKERS AND THEIR CUSTOMERS.
EI-PARTE ROBINSON AND ANOTHER IN THE MATTER OF
SYKES AND CO. BANKERS.
Mr. PEMBERTON stated this to be a petition, praying
that Exchequer bills of the value of 2,0001. found in
the iron chest of the bankrupts, might be ordered to
be delivered up by the assignees to his clients. Several
years ago a distillery house at Vauxhall assigued over
their effects to the petitioners, who in their character as
trustees deposited two Exchequer bills of 1,0001. each
with the bankrupts, who were bankers in the City, and
some years since one of their partners in that house sold
the bills. The partnership, about six weeks previous to
the stoppage of payment, without the knowledge of the
trustees, purchased two other Exchequer bills, and en-
teted them in their ledger bill bock in columns, con-
taining the number, date, and amount, and name of the
owners-44 Sir G. Robinson and Mr. William Sykes's
trustee account"—and der,sited them in their iron chest;
after their stoppage and payment, and before tke bank-
ruptcy, they enclosed these bills in a sealed envelope,
and endorsed that in the names of the trustees. The
question for his Honour to decide was, whether the bills
were the property of the trustees, or of the bankrupts'
estate?
Mt...Kluwer, on the part of the assignees; contended,
en the authority of the case of Dwaynes v. Noble, in
Campbell's Reports, afterwards confirmed by the Court
of King's Bench, that there had been no appropriation
of the new Exchequer bills, because the trustees were
ignorant of sale of the first bills, and the purchase of
the second.
Vice CHANCELLOR_Let me see that case.
Mr. KNIGHT read it, whereby it appeared that
Dwaynes and Co. the bankrupts, being bankers, sold
15,000 i. stock belonging to Mr. Noble, one of their
custome s, several )ear: before their failure, and at the
titne,of such sale, e. cb set several valuable bonds in a
sealed envelope with this memorandum, " Borrowed
of Noble, Esq. 15,(.001. of Navy Fives, which we
hereby promise to replace, and as a security we also
undertake to assign the enclosed bonds to him upon
request, signed by one of the hankers." The day
before Deena and Co.'s bankruptcy, they sent
this envelope to Mr. Noble, who retained the bonds.
Their assignees brought an action of trover to recover
them, an_d Lord Erlenborough held that as the sale of
the stcck, and the other circumstances, were without
the know ledye of Mr. Noble, there was no legal appro-
priation of the bonds, and therefore they formed part of
the bankrupt's estate, and Mr. Noble must give them
up and prove his debt as a creditor.
Mr. KNIGHT therefore contended, that as the bus-
tees were ignorant of the sale of the fist, and the pur•
chase of the second Exchequer bills, that they could
claim no title therein.
Mr. PEMBERTON in reply said, that very fortunately
Mr. Sykes, one of the partners in the banking.houre.
was also ontsof the trustees, and therefore as Mr. Sykes
kr.ew of the transaction, the case cited did not apply.
Mr. KNIGHT—He knew it as a banker, not as a
trt:stee.
The VICE CHANCELLOR ordered the Exchequer bills
to be deliveted up to the trustees, as it appeared to him
Mr. Sykes, one of them, was acquainted with the entire
transaction, but if he had not Leen so, then the bills
would have been the property of the bankrupts.