The Statesman.
London, England, 1815-11-21 00:00:00

o

LAW INTRI.LIGgiVer.

COURT OF CHANCERY. Nov. 2(1.
rettervosr TIIE erarren OP TAYLOR.
Mr. HORN stated this to be a Petition front. Mr.
Impey, praying that Taylor's ennitaisAmi of hank-
roptcy might he superseded, and his certificate re-
tailed, with payment of costs on various grounds,
particularly on the ground of the fraudulent nratis
employed in• procuring them. 'fete Petitioner's Citurtsel brought forward the fellowing a 1 egalion, sepe
ported by alfitla‘irlt. ayl.or was areatterney, thane!
the commission against him was taken out upoostim
the ground that he was a nionq•llTTiienfr apdos
borsesde'aler. The commis,ion,wes.,thetefsare voiaz
DS•att attorney could not ls.considered .oedef the ti-
tle of a trader, or a charncter whseemsete voider the.
Bankrupt Laws." in additieu to this the comretsaiee
was•frauduleistly a,id.bv caeicert obtained. The pit
titionieg creditor, Bfatt, who proved 193 L. Tither it,
wee merely a nominal creditor, and was never worth
above ten pounds le his-life time. ,When ritipttioned
*Stir .r.egard, to. the veluable coesiderartioe which he
bad• given to the baukropt., Areatesucti cr.edit
with him, he was eni§arrassetfi and scold_ only with
any appearunces of prolathle.honerity eccosset for, 501.
Eten this last seta was raises in a wee not eery satis-
factory, being said to ..be incurred for, ,Ikreasl and
china, although the hankropt ceeld have procired
these 'articles much mord conveniently frOrn. other
seurrters than-from hie shop. The messenger, who
wag said to have weiched over the bankrupt's proper- ,
ty when the commission. *as issued, denied he was'
ever employed for •thet purpose ; and, eonsequently,,
the bona- fide creditors had sea security, that their'
property in 'faylor's.possession was protected. . fa-
deed.Taylor himself seemed to have the managefnent
even of the commission issued against him, as the
cieditors who proved under it were net, in point. of
fact, holders of the•greatest portion of credits, had
the Petitioner's debt been rolmitti4 as it ought to
have been. The Petitioner's debt was 2501. which
Farm, together with that of at.otl:er creditor, who
likewise complained, would have governed the corn-
taission. They, however, could not get full infor-
mation on the quantity or the nature of the various
debts proved, as they were not allowed to inspect.
the proceedings. This constituted another ground
on which the prayer of the present Petition proceed-
ed. Impey's debt was expunged, and he was told
that he could base no account of those which were
admitted.
Sir S. Romstr.T, for the Bankrupt, contended,
that notice of the proceedings under the commission
could not legally be demanded by a creditor who
held out against it. The Petitioner's debt,, it sew
true, was at first expunged, but it was afterwardrj
admitted, and would now entitle him to his proper
dividend. Page's debt, the creditor who held nut
*Rh Impey, was allowed from the beginning. No
proof of the existence of fictitious debts had been
established. - Nothing but suspicion and surto* was
brought forward as evidence of• such an assertion.—
The profession of Taylor WIIF known as generally to
be that of a horse-dealer as au attorney, arid even
the Petitioner bed had transactions with him in that
•characier.
• Ilia Lordship said, he would read the affidavits, I
and would postpone judgment till he had done so.—,
. Because a men was an attorney, would„now appear ;
no reason against his being •tt money-sctiverier or. a
-horse-dealer. Every attorney was not. a moneylcri- I
venpr, nor every money-scrivener an attorney, though
such an idea seems to have .gone abroad. People
.who buy and sell books, as was seen in a recentiti-
starve, were declared traders although attoruies, and ;
the same might happen with attornies who these to
deal in horses. •
BROOKE AND CHATTER'S., IN VIE .MATTER OP. WAT-
SON AND CO.
Sir S. ROMILLY and Mr. COOKE Supported a peti-
tion-in this case, which payed for the interference of,
the Court under the following circumstances: The
firm of Watson and Co. which failed sometime since,
was indebted to the Banking-house of Wright and
Co. to the amount of 40001. or upwards, in 1810. '
The house of Wright refused them further credits, .1
.and required security for what they had already ad.
vanced, or a discharge of some part of it. Brooke
• and Chatteris, the Petitioners, here interpq.ed, and j
became sureties fur Watson to the extent of 15001.
each, making between them 30001. of security to
Wright and Co. One of the• Petitioners paid into
Wright's Banking-house his quota in January, 1813.
Some time afterwards Watson and Co. became hank-
.viipts. They were indebted at this time to Wright's
about 40001. and could only pay a dividend of 9s.
and a fraction in the pound. Chatteris at this time
paid to Wright the balance of the loss that would be
incurred upon the 15001. for which he stood surety,
and obtained a receipt. Wright and Co. then ad-
vanced a claim, which the Petitioners were not aware
-could ever he formed, and which they 'tow enders-
Toured to resist. Instead of considering Chatteris
and Brooke as security only to the amount of their
promissory note, or their deposit of three-thousand
pounds, and liable only to make good deficits in
debt to that extent, they stated, that they considered
the 30001. as a general covering security for any
losses they might incur upon the whole of the credits
which they advanced to Watson and Co. the bank-
?opts.. The Learned Counsel argued, . that these
could not be the terms on which the Petitioners pro-
ceeded, in becoming sureties for their friends, and
that in the absence of legal documents, which
could point to such an interpretation of their engage-
ments, the Court ought to order the 30001. to be ex-
pilogOd from the debts proved under the commission ;
that Wright he considered as paid to such an amount,
that he should have no further claim Opon.them ; end
. that they be allowed to have their dividends with the
rest of the creditors. Chatteris and BroWke were
sureties for the amount of their a ritten agreement
only, and having satisfied the claims of Wright and
• Co. for deficienres to the extent promised, they as:,
sumed their place as creditors to the bankrupt.
Mr. Le tco, on the other hand, contended, that
the Petitioners became sureties to Wright and Co.
for hazards on the whole amount of their advances
to the bankrupts; and that the 30001. was a general
covering pledge ageing all losses. Ile read several
averments that such was the understanding of the
[proles, and that such was the inducement held out
to his clients in their loans to the Bankrupts.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he would peruse the