« PreviousContinue »
SALT & SONS,
FROM MICHAELMAS TERM, 1823, TO TRINITY TERM, 1824,
BOTH INCLUSIVE ;
The Court of Common Pleas,
FROM MICHAELMAS TERM, 1823, TO EASTER TERM, 1824,
PUBLISHED BY J. W. PAGET, 5, QUALITY COURT, CHANCERY LANE.
THE LAW JOURNAL
SOLD TO ANNUAL SUBSCRIBERS ONLY:
1. Reports of Cases in the Courts of Equity. 2. Reports of Cases in the Court of King's Bench. 3. Reports of Cases in the Court of Common Pleas. 4. Reports of Cases in the Ecclesiastical and Admiralty Courts. 5. A Digest of all the Reports in every Court of Justice in the Kingdom. 6. An Annual Supplement to Burn's Justice. 7. An Abridgment of every Act of Parliament immediately after it has passed. 's. Law Tracts.
DURING THE PERIOD OF THESE REPORTS.
IN THE COURTS OF EQUITY.
Master of the Rolls.
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Lord Chief Justice.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Lord Chief Baron.
IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. The Right Hon. Sir John Nicholl, Knt. Official Principal of the Arches Court of Canter
bury, Judge of the Prerogative Court and the Court of Peculiars of Canterbury. The Right Hon. Lord Stowell, Judge of the High Court of Admiralty of England. The Right Hon. Sir CHRISTOPHER Robinson, Knt. Chancellor of the Diocese of London.
CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED
COURT OF CHANCERY:
COMMENCING IN THE
MICHAELMAS TERM, 1823,
GEDGE V. TRAILL.
was indebted to Paxton and Co., and that Nov, 3.
Paxton and Co. were entitled to retain the
assets in their possession in satisfaction Demarrer to a bill filed by a creditor, of their own claim. All the partners in against A. the executor, and his partners the house of Paxton and Co. were made B., C., &c., alleging, that assets of the defendants to the amended bill. There was testator had come into the hands of the no express specific allegation of collusion partnership, and that all the partners between Traill and his co-partners, except claimed to retain these assets, in satisfac- the common charge of confederacy. tion of a debt duc from the testator to All the partners of the house of Paxton their firm, but not alleging in terms col- and Co., cxcept Traill, put in a general lusion betwcen A. and the other defen- demurrer to the amended bill. The ground dants : the demurrer is overruled.
of demurrer was, thnt the creditor was enThe bill was filed by the administratrix titled to proceed only against the executor, of a creditor of Napier, for payment of the unless he made a special case, by charging debt out of Napier's assets. It stated, that collusion between the executor and the Napier died in India, having appointed person having assets in his possession ; certain executors there, and other execu- and that the bill here contained no such tors here; that the executors in India had charge. proved the will there, and had remitted Mr. Cockerell was for the demurrer: considerable sums to the defendant Traill, Mr. Teed, contrà. who was the sole personal representative Vice Chancellor.-I am inclined to think, of the testator in England. Traill was that this bill, though it does not charge originally the only defendant, but, by collusion in terms, states on the face of it amendment, it was alleged, that the assets circumstances which amount to collusion. had been remitted either to Traill, or to It charges, that the assets have been rethe house of Paxton and Co., in which he mitted either to Traill, or to the house of was a partner, and that they (meaning all Paxton and Co., and that all the partners the defendants) pretended that the testator of that house claim to retain them in satis