Star. — 1819-02-06 (London, England)

LAW INTELLIGENCE:  VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, FEBRUARY 3.  BOOT V. LABURN AND ANOTHIR.  Mr. Hater, in this case, applied for an injunction ' to restrain the defendant, Laburn, from collecting or calling in any bills or sums of money, arising out of a partnership concern between him and a Mr. Thompson, who had, prior to his decease, made the present plaintiff his. executor ; and also, that the detendants might be restrained from receiving certain rte: s ; and that the defendant, Laburn, might be direct::d to. deliver up, within one week, all dse books, papers, &c. relative to the said partnership transactior,3 : and, finally, that a receiver might be appointed to whom the said papers were to be given up.— The circumstances, as stated by Mr. Hart, were as follows :—ln the month of March, 1810, Mr. Thompson and the defendant, Laburn, entered into :iv, agreement to trade as partners, for the•supply of shipping with butcher's meat, with a capital of thirty thousand pounds, each covenanting that in the event of either dying within the period of ten years, the successor was to take the whole of the property on giving sufficient bonds to the executor of the deceased partner, for the payment of such sum as should be found due to him, which was directed to be done by four equal instalments. The trade was carried on till December, 1818, when the. defendant, Laburn, had, as the bill alleged, got piissession of the whale of the 430,000, and applied it to his own use. A serious misunderstanding arose between the parties, and Mr. Thompson demanded that the defendant, Laburn, should give him three bills as a security for the balance due from him to Mr. Thompson, which was accordingly done.' Shortly after this time Mr. Thompson, from the dismal state of his affairs, became affected in his intellects, and closed his existence by suicide, having, by his will, appointed the present plaintiff, and a Mr. Roper, his executors.— The defendant, Laburn, having got possession of the whole of the papers in Mr. Thompson's possession, at his death, relative to the transaction, refused to give them up.; it was however known that a.balance of £lB,OOO was due to Mr: Thompson on the partnership account. The defendant, Laburn, had refused to give the plaintiff security, which he was bound to do by the partnership agreement, or to come to any settlement‘vith the plaintiff, and had himself since become insolvent, notwithstanding which he was at present collecting in the debts due to the estate. The insolvency of the' defendant would, of course, he said, •preclude his now giving the security required ; and, therefore, the only remedy the plaintiff had was to apply to the Court. The above facts were supported by affidavit ; in answer to which the defendant's answer alleged, that he had advanced various sums of money on the partnership account ; but it did not deny the material facts. Mr. Hart was proceeding to read the the affidavit of Mr. Laburn, when The Vtos-Cua.bioitu.oa said, there was no need of troubling Mr. Hart, since the Defendant admitted that the survivor was to take on the express condition of giving security; this he had not done, and therefore his Honour felt himself bound to issue the Injunction. Had the Defendant given the security, his Honour would have felt great difficulty in bringing his mind to a conclusion to grant the Injunction, but in addition to the admitted fact respecting the security, it was also admitted that the Defendant was in an insolvent state ; he could not of course now give security. His Honour directed the Injunction to issue as prayed for.