The Statesman.
London, England, 1813-05-10 00:00:00

LdIV INTELLIGENCE.
•
COURT OF CH ANCERY, MAY 81

mo raw 's.
Several points were decided on mottoes thb' day,
and among the rest one which arose in the cause of
scan V. MACKINTOSH.
It appeared, that Mackintosh was a provision Mir-
chant, and had been a provision broker to 11
. demblp extent. Scott purchased the gotod-will of
his brokt•rage business, antler a bond and cotenant
that he was not any further to exercise It in the city
of London, and the usual engagements in sachems.
Mackintosh continued hiabusiness of provision mer-
child, and. likewise, as the Plaintiff alleged, that of
provision broker; upon which the Plaintiff his
bill of injunction against' the lkfendant, to restrain
hint from carrying on the brokerage busbies*: and
also (we should imagine) for an &cermet, though tkat
was not distinctly alleged. The Plaintiff likewise
brought his action at law for damages upon•his bond
and. covenant. The answer in the equity bait was
• referred for insufficiency; and was pronounced by
Master Coke to be insueimit, and tisereapen the
injunction was granted ; but the Master of. the
'tolls being of opinion that the answer was anfick-
enti.-this njonction was dissolved. The Plaintiff, in
the mean iime proceeded at 'miler damage to the
amount Oa far as cooed be collectigl from the belt
&twat statement of the case) of Aleut 12001. The
Defendant paid 7501. info Court, which the Plaintiff
took out, and "in proceeding afterieards was non-

suited. " •
The motion now (by Mr. Anal) Was to revive the
injunction.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said, that though there
was an appeal from the decision of the Master of
the Rolls, the answer for the present must be taken
as sufficient, and thefore he could not revive the in-
junction. The Plaintiff, he also said, did not ap-
pear to he put to any great hardship by this, when
Ise had got 7501. in a cause in which he had been
noo.suited ; and he could not expect to restrain the
Defendant from selling his own provisions. Hemight
as well expect to restrain him from eating them.—
Injunction refused.
11.‘ KKUPT PETITIONS.
Some petitions in bankrupt cases were disposed of;
and among others, that of
EX-PARTE BLAKE, IN TUE RATTER OF BARNARD
BROOKE, A BANKRUPT.
When Brooke's attain had become deranged, one
Suffield, a creditor, and afterwards Blake, another
of the creditors, bad applialfor a commission. Be-
fere either of them bad ibeen opened, Blake sag.
gested, or appeared to approve when suggested, a
trust-deed for the distribution of the bankrupt's ef..:
fects. Trustees were appointed. Suffield was ill.
duced to !Ave up his commission, and then Blake (as
was stated in the allidalits)insisted upon a handsome 1
sum being paid to him for abandoniug his commis•
sion, as well to Suffield. The alleged acts of bank-
ruptcy upon which Btake founded his commission
were two : the execution of, or assent to, the trust- I
deed, by the bankrupt ; and the compromise with i
pffteld. A Mr. Toilets, or Timauts, then sued oat
a third commission, which wiz opened; and sew
Blake applied by petition to- supersede this thipll
commission, and to have his own proceeded la.
, The Cmascar.r.oa 'doubted whether any of -the
commissions could be supported—certainly not that
of Blake. l'ae compromise with Suffield was no act
of bankruptcy, unless the bankrupt was a party to
it • and Blake could not found a commission upon
the bankrupt's being a party to a trust.deed, which
Blake himself had encouraged. The prayer of this
petition, therefore, could not be complied with.
RE.PARTE STAPLETON, IN THE MATTER OW WOOLLEY,
.1 BANKRUPT.

The bankruptcy in this case took place in 1808,
and the petitioner Stapleton was chosen assignee,
end as such carried on the bankrupt's trade of
brewer or liquor merchant for a much longer time.
than was necessary for windingep the concern. lie
was, in 1809, removed from being assignee, and a
question arose how he was to account to the credi-1
tors. It appeared to the Chancellor, that the credi-
tors mi , either take the whole as he left it when
from the assigneeship, in which case he /
. be obliged to account for the profits, if any,
but not to make up the loss, if there had peen-any
loss; or they might insist upon having the stock in
trade as it stood when the concern ought to have
been wound up, iii which case the petitioner must
make up all the losses, but would be entitled to the
profits of the business, if .1 o any. The second assignee
-hose the latter alternative, and the Chancellor or-
lered an account to be taken before the Muter upon
hat footing. The several items of the account wets
:eenty_coatested befoul the Materonnd no Goal ad.
itisintenrlitts as yet taltetrptace:- •• • ---•-- --- .':.;-:- r".
Tbe petitioner now applied to the Court for ae•
order, to be allowed In the account several sums re-
taint! by slr second assignee, as profits arising
from the (retie while he managed it upon the prin-
ciple of the order made nearly five y_eors ago ; and
the answer of the Counsel, Messrs.. Hartand Wing.
Isid, was, that there had been au agreement between
the parties that these sum,: should be set off against o
larger sum due by Stapleton to the concern, bet tit
answer was not borne.out by the aadavits.
The CIIANCELLOS observed, that if the parties
and their agents had proceeded as they ought to hays
done upon the plain directions of an order made.
nearly five years ago, they might easily have finished
the whole business in five or six weeks. •Now, how.
ever, in the year 1813, he was applied to for tits
same order as that which he had made in 1809, and
yet the pour Court of Chancery was blamed by tlss,
public for delays whim arose 'Mindy from theeou.
duct of parties and their ageidi. . There could be niii
doubt (as the allegation of an agreement was not
supported), but the petitioner was entitled to have
the profits accounted for ender the order of • 1809 ;
and, therefore, be saw no OCeilli•W to make mothers I,
such order now. - The only; order be .should make,
would be oneforthe purpose of making a slight ad.,
ditien I. that of 1809, which had become necessary,
owing to the delay. • •
In the courts of the argument the CUANCELLOX
expresser:llmi enrieeity to know what lad been
done witha gaastitsy of bad beer which belonged to
ele concern, and was stated to be good for floating.
Mr. Hart thought it must have been thrown sway;

1h tors might
removed fr
would be
but not to
loss; or tl
trade as ii
been worn
make up al
' profits of t
chose the 1
dered an ac
that footiui
t & ee.n.ty_con
'
The peril
order, to bi
•
ceived by
from the to
ciple of the
the answer
V. Cid, was,
the parties
larger stun
answer wss
The Cu
and their a,
•
done upon
4 nearly five
the whole 1
• eres, in tl
same order
yet the poi
public for
duct of pal
doubt (as
supported)
the profits
and, there
such order
would be c
dition to
owtrtg to t
In the c
expressed
done with
ele calmer
• llr. Ilart