The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-01-28 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCRRY..—MosoAr.
cot:main-Ctn.:too. Ka. _

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment in this case.
It was an appeal from the Vice Chancellor's decree, and
arose thus:—hv articles dated the 16th of September,
1812, James ltultinridge; Thomas Rowland, tteorge
Mansell, and William Cooke, agreed to carry on the
business of a coach-maker in Liquorpomhstreet. in co-
partnership •from the Ist of Mosey, ISII, for the tenn
of seven years, These articles contained various provi-
sions, and among others, it stipulated that in case any
one of the partners should die before the end of the
term, the surviving partners should carry on the trade
for the benefit of the personal representatives of the
partner so dying. It was also provided that at the end
of the term the whole of the stock, which consisted of
leases, materials, and agreements for supplying various
customers with carriages fur certain periods, should be
divided into shares, and be theproperty of each of the part-
ners, according to their several interests therein. The
event first provided for had happened in the, death
of Mr. Cooke, who met with an accident which
terminated his life. Previous to his decease be
made his will, of which he appointed his son-
with others, executors. They were invested with an
authority of the most extensive description, and bad full
powers to deal with the testator's estate in such a span,
nor as they might think beneficial. The testator dis-
posed of his property among his children in various
shares. An arrangement had been made which the
parties intended to he in perfect good faith, but it
seemed it was one sOiich the policy of the Court
Gould not recognise. Mr. Cooke, the testator's son,
had, in his capacity of executor, solo to the surviving
partners the interest of the testator in the partnership,
and he had subsequently bought that share back again,
and by new articles had been admitted a partner in the
trade. The stock had been valued as well, perhaps, as it
could be, and amounted to a pretty large sum, which
bad been paid. It was for the Court now to see whe-
ther what had been done could stand, and to this his
Lordship had no hesitation in giving a negative. It was
impossible for the Court to shut its eyes to the nature of
this transaction, which was of that sort it never could
admit of. Persons invested with the character of trus-
tees could never be permitted so to deat with trust estates
that any advantage could result to themselves. It re-
mained, therefore, only to be considered whether the sale
which had been made was for the benefit of the legatees
-ander the testator's will ; for this purpose it should be
referred to the Master to ascertain that fact, and whether
the persons so interested were still desirous that it should
be confirmed. Unless both these points were satisfac-
torily reported, the sale must be void, and the partner-
ship pronounced not to have terminated with the death
of the testator. The Vice Chancellor, in his decision.
had seemed to think that the sale was not had in itself,
if the parties interested had consented; and it was upon
this point only that his Lordship differed from him.
If the matter was not an anged by the parties, there
was nothing to be done but by ping into the Master's
office.

,Jr. Haar hoped that the goal sense of the parties
would enable them to get out of the :44%ter's but
they must first be in it. As it had happened in the
rase of Aleux's brewery, as soon as thq got into the
blaster's °Dire, they sat► they could iicike a better
arrangement fee themsel►es than he could inske for
them. _ . .

..... .
The Loan Cu ANCELLOR said he wished it to be under-
stood, that he cast nu blame upon the parties fur what
they had done, there was nn &mitt they were actuated
by proper motives, hut they had endeavoured to do what
the Court could not sanction.

COURT OF KING'S 13ENCII—MONDAY.
THE KING V. MAD.
The SOLICITOR OeresoAt. moved for a rule to show
cause why the verdict in this case bold not be set