The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-07-13 00:00:00

LAW INTEhLIGRACS.
COCO OF CHANCRItY, Jinx It.

Ibe Lord l'hauseelloe was tbis,day occupied until
nelr four o'clock is the bearing of Appeals, bat so-
• thirst occurred worthy of public make.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
pro. I.I.Ik• PG', Rag. r. WRIGHT ♦NO MITT.

It will he in the recollection of oar readers that the
'a;ntiff had obtained an injunction, restraining the
1.1 fondants from proceeding in a certain action which
. been commenced in one of the Conn* below, for
iLe recovery of the amount of certain post obit bonds
ven by the plaintiff to the defendant, Levy, for the
purpose of raising money on them.
31r. Weviisnatt. now, on the part of the defendant,
!Jr. Wright, moved to dissolve that injunction. The
fallowing is a brief summary of the facts of the

'the plaintiff, who was (notified to very considerable
property on the demise of his Whet, Mr. James Fos,
h tying occasion in the year 11320 to raise a sum of
money, applied to the defendant, Levy, who suggested
the execution of post obit bonds, which the plaintiff
agreed to, and such were accordingly drawn up by
the plaintiff to the amount of about 40,000/., and
given by the latter to the defendant, who applied to
%Ir. Phillips, the respectable auctioneer of Bond-
street, to sell the same by auction. They were ac-
cordingly advertised on the 17th of January last, and
the defendant, Wright, attended the sale, and was de-
cl.ired the purchaser of one of the bonds for 201101.
f.er the sum of 4115/. Oil the 7th of April following
t',e plaintiff gave as a collateral security to the hood
bought, a warrant of attorney, and thus matters
s'ood until the decease of Mr. James Fox, the father

of the plaintiff, which took place a short time after-
wards. Mr. 0. L. Fox having taken possession of the
of his father, the bond became due, and
eveatitally legal proceedings were commenced for the
recovery of its amount. The plaintiff suspecting col-
lusion, applied to the Court for an injunction to stay
the proceedings at law, which he obtained on the re
presentation that there bad been collusion betoren
Wright and Levy, and that the defendants had con-
certed together for the purpose of taking advantage
of him, and also that the purchase was not made
loins fide by Wright. but for the benefit of Levy.—
At'lle answer now put in to those allegations, on the
pert of Wright, denied them in lobo. It was aloe
aworn that lie, Wright, had not. previously to the
sale in question, any connexion or dealings with Levy,
but having seen the sale advertised he had gone to it,
and made the purchase in question, and assigned as a
erase. for not buying more of the bonds that be did
not like to sink any larger sum at that moment. Mr.
Wetherell having guue over the various allegations
made in behalf the defendants, proceeded to cite
various cases in support of his argnatest that the sale
of post obit securities could not be effected in a Court
ui Equity ; because, as in this instance, the party
had come i-ito possession murk earlier than he had
expected ; and then contended that an adequate value
Lad !teen given for the bond at the time the sale took
pace. It could not be maintained that the price
aught to be fixed by the calculations of an actuary in
:s counting house ; that, he was of opinion, must be
decided by the sum they would fetch in the market.
Ilene the sale had been wade openly, and the price
;'aim was considered to be the fair market price; in
atidition to which, there was the strong fact, which
VAS of great importance here, namely, that nut of the
c•ht•le 40,000/. worth of bonds, be, Mr. Wright, had
F archaised but this one of 2,0001., notwithstanding he
rai_ht have obtained the whole on the same advanta-
geous terms. Under these circumstances, therefore,
•! trusted the injunction would be dissolved.
Mr. Wanartra.n, on the saute side, censured the
conduct of the plaintiff in applying to a t ourt of
ia!ttity after having, as he contended, obtained the
► :sue of the bond.
Mr. AGAR defended the conduct of Levy, whom he
ti•-scribed to have acted with the insist honourable in
tections towards the plaintiff, he not having received
y remuneration for the trouble and interest he had
taken in the affairs of the plaintiff; and, in this in-
s:ance, to have done all in his power to give satisfac-
tion by employing so respectable an auctioneer.
Mr. Brit. (with whom was Mr. SIDIFISOTHAM) sup-
pu• tetl the Injunction, and dwelt at some length on the
vecessity of the Court interfering in cases like the
present, to protect the property of persons, who might
c.itenvine get into the hands of unprincipled persons,
c•ho, taking the advantage of their temporary embar-
rAssments, obtained from them securities to an amount
ut so great a magnitude, and for a sum so trifling and
iredequate in compari.on to it. Here security for no
less a sum than 2111101. had been obtained from a young
gentleman, at the time only 27 years of age, to pay
4.61) the decease of his father, then 64; and could It, he
would ask, be said that it was a fair transaction, or
that advantage had not been taken ? He 'blended the
propr ety of the conduct of the plaintiff, in applying to
the Court under the present circumstanres, and con-
cluded by subiniting that the Injunction ought to be
continued.
The Vice-CitaxcatLott, toting into view the great
:toportance of the present question, expressed an opl-1
'lion that it ought to have the most mature considers-
time, and be decided on the hearing of the case. The
general role of a Court of Equity was, that the sale by
private contract of a post obit security could not be esta-
blished and maintained unless the full value were given
tor it; but that rule did not apply here, for this nes a
Male by auction, and the Court never interfered in such
cases, unless the vender was in the power of the pur-
chaser, and the price paid was nut the fair market
price. The cases cited by Mr. Wetherell were decided
on this principle; but here the bonds were to be sold
witbont reserve, as it was stated, and the plaintiff
• Lad not the power of employing any person to bid for
• them, in order that they should not be sold for le-s

AR the market price. If that opportunity bad been
afforded him, the plaintiff, be, the Mire-Chancellor,
• thought be would not have suffered them to have been
knocked down for so small a sow.. Under all the cir-
eonstances, therefore, it would be difficult to say that
Cie vendor was in no sense in the power of the pur-
chaser, and that the purchase money paid was the
fair mari,tt price. However, for the purpose of hav-
ing the case solemnly decided on, he would continue
njunctiou, on the plaintiff paying into Court the
of 424/. with the interest due oit that sum.

~..:

-
the 4
40X1 0
ALL