Under a marriage-settlement B. was tenant for life, Held, also, that the money did not pass under the [V.C. L. The testator's sons Walter Bagot, Harvey Baget, . By indentures of lease and release, dated respective Mr. William Bagot made his will on the 13th Dec. The Rev. Walter Bagot by his will, dated the 4th May 1798, gave and devised all his manors, lands, hereditaments and real estates, situate in the counties of Warwick and Lancaster and elsewhere in Great Britain, with their appurtenances, to Richard Howard and Walter Sneyd for the term of 1000 years upon certain trusts therein mentioned, and subject thereto, to his son Egerton Arden Bagot, for the term of his natural life, and after the determination of that estate by surrender, forfeiture, or otherwise, to the use of Charles Chester and William Cowper and their heirs during the life of his said son Egerton Arden Bagot, upon trust to preserve and support the contingent uses and estates thereinafter limited from being defeated or destroyed; and from and after the decease of his said son Egerton Arden Bagot to the use and behoof of the first and all and every other the son and sons of his said son Egerton Arden Bagot, severally and successively in tail male; and in default of such issue, then in like manner to his the testator's sons Walter Bagot, William Bagot, Harvey Bagot and Humphrey Bagot respectively for their lives, with re-in tail male, and for default of such issue in trust for mainder to the same trustees during their respective lives to preserve the contingent uses, with remainders respectively to the first and other sons of the testator's said sons in tail male, such estates in tail male of the testator's grandsons to succeed immediately after the deaths of their parents respectively; and in default of such issue to his the testator's son, the petitioner Ralph Bagot and his assigns, for and during the term of his life, with remainder to the use of the said Charles Chester and William Cowper and their heirs during the life of his said son Ralph, upon trust to preserve the contingent uses and estates thereinafter limited from being defeated, with remainder to the first and all and every other the son and sons of the said Ralph Bagot severally and successively in tail male in like manner as the estates stood limited and settled upon his other sons and their heirs male respectively; and in default of such issue, to the use and behoof of his the testator's heirs male of his body lawfully issuing, and in default of such issue to his own right heirs for ever. The testator died in July 1806, and upon his decease the said Egerton Arden Bagot entered into possession as tenant for life, and remained in possession thereof until his death in 1861. such person and persons as at the time of the failure In 1841, subsequent to the date of his will, Wm. E 3 V.C. K.] Re BAGOT'S SETTLEMENT. [V.C. K. the Acts of Parliament relating to the company, and re- | Act were extended to such lands. This contract was quired for the purposes of their railway. The contract approved by the directors, and the company shortly was in the words and figures following:-" Birmingham after the date of the contract took possession of the and Derby Junction Railway. Tame Valley line. Bir-land and constructed part of their railway on it." mingham and Derby Junction Railway Company and Wm. Bagot, Esq. Price to be paid for 2a. 3r. 38p. of land, being No. 143 on the company's plan, in the parish of Aston, in the county of Warwick, taken for the purposes of their railway, amount, at 2107. per acre. 6271. 7s. 6d. The company are to pay for the timber growing upon the land, and all expenses attending the negotiation and completion of the purchase which may be incurred by the said Wm. Bagot, Esq., and they are also to pay for the abstract of title and the cost of conveyance of the said land. The vendor is to furnish an abstract of his title within a fortnight from the date hereof, and the purchase is to be completed on or before the 10th of April next. As witness our hands this 16th of March 1841. Wm. Bagot. Wm. Fowler for the said company, subject to the approval of the directors." By the 3 Vict. c. 18, the Birmingham and Derby Junction Railway Company was, with other companies, dissolved and their Act of incorporation repealed, and the rights and liabilities of the company were transferred to the Midland Company, and it was thereby enacted that, in all cases in which any of the dissolved companies previously to the passing of that Act, should, under the powers and provisions of any of the Acts thereby repealed, have entered into any contract for the purchase of, or should have taken or used any land which at the time of the passing of that Act should not be effectually conveyed to such company, or the purchase-money in respect of which should not have been duly paid by such company, then and in every such case such contract should be completed, and such land should be conveyed to the company thereby incorporated, or as such company should direct, and such purchase-money should be paid and applied pursuant to the Act or Acts under which such contract should have been made or such land should have been taken or used. The said sum of 6271. 7s. 6d. was not paid into the bank until the time hereinafter mentioned, but interest thereon was paid to Wm. Bagot during the remainder of his life, and after his decease to Martha Bagot until her death. The Midland Railway Company recently paid this sum, together with 4781. 98. 6d., being arrears of interest, making together 1105%. 17s. into court. The Rev. Egerton Arden Bagot, who survived his brother Wm. Bagot, was his heir-at-law, and died without leaving issue, having entered into possession of the estate called Butler's Farm under the limitations con tained in Wm. Bagot's will. He in his turn devised his real estates not otherwise disposed of to his sister Mrs. Legge for life, and at her decease to his several nephews and their issue severally and successively in tail male, with remainder to himself in fee. The Rev. Mr. Bagot died on the 4th Feb. 1861, and his nephews as residuary devisees claimed the principal of the whole fund as having descended to him, and that Mrs. Legge was by his will entitled to the interest thereof as first tenant for life. The Birmingham and Derby Junction Railway Company was incorporated in 1836, by the 6 Will. 4, c. 35, and thereby the usual powers were conferred upon the company, and by the 38th section it was enacted that all purchase-moneys payable under the Act upon sales where the vendors were under any disability, and exceeding in amount the sum of 2007, should be paid into the Bank of England in the name of the Accountant-General, and should there remain until the same should be applied, under the direction of the court, either in the purchase or redemption of the land-tax, or in or towards the discharge of any debt or other incumbrance affecting the said lands, or affecting other lands standing settled therewith to the same or the like uses, trusts, intents, or purposes as the said court should authorise to be purchased or paid, or such part thereof as should be necessary, or until the same should be laid out by order of the court, made in a summary way, in the purchase of other lands, which should be conveyed, limited and settled to, for and upon such and the like uses, trusts, intents and purposes, and in the same manner as the lands which should be so purchased, taken, or used as aforesaid, in respect of which such compensation or satisfaction should be paid, stood settled and limited, or such of them as at the time of making such conveyance and settlement should be existing undetermined or capable of taking effect, and in the meantime, and until such purchase could be made, the money might, by order of the court, upon application thereto, be in- The petitioner, Ralph Bagot, who had become the vested by the Accountant-General, in his name, in the personal representative of his brother by taking out purchase of Consols, or in Government or real securi- letters of administration of his personal estate, claimed ties, and in the meantime and until such annuities or the principal sum as undisposed-of personalty of Wm. securities should be ordered by the court to Bagot, together with all interest due thereon. Or, if be sold for the purposes aforesaid, or should be not due to him as aforesaid, then that the principal called in or cancelled, the dividends or interest property belonged to the devisees of Butler's Farm, and and annual produce thereof should from time to time, passed by the will, and therefore the petitioner's infant by order of the court, be paid to the party who would son, Wm. Walter Bagot, who was tenant in tail of the for the time being have been entitled to the rents and estate in remainder expectant upon the petitioner's profits of such lands so to be purchased. And by the death, was the party entitled. 41st section it was enacted that in such cases it should be lawful for the court to order the costs, charges and expenses attending the purchase of such lands as were thereby authorised to be taken, or which might be incurred in consequence thereof, and also the costs, charges and expenses of the reinvestment of the purchase or compensation money in other lands, or so much of such several costs, charges and expenses as the court should deem reasonable, together with the necessary costs, charges and expenses of obtaining the proper orders for the purpose to be paid by the company. The executors of E. A. Bagot claimed the interest of the fund (which had accrued since the death of Martha Bagot), whether as descending to their testator as heirat-law or passing by the devise in Wm. Bagot's will. Glasse, Q.C. and F. Kelly appeared for the petitioner. Baily, Q.C. and Atkins for the Rev. E. A. Bagot's executors. W. M. James, Q.C. and J. J. Jervis for the residuary devisees of the Rev. E. A. Bagot. Lewin for the infant son of the petitioner. The following authorities were referred to in the By another Act, the 3 Vict. c. 18, the company course of the argument:-Haynes v. Haynes, 1 Dr. & was authorised to take, for the purposes of their railway, Sm. 426; Re Horner's Estate, 5 De G. & Sm. 483; certain additional lands (including the lands forming Re Stewart's Trust, 1 Sm. & Giff. 32; Ex parte part of Butler's Farm), and the provisions of the former | Flammank, 1 Sim. N. S. 260; Re Manchester and V.C. K.] Re BAGOT'S SETTLEMENT. [V.C. E Southport Railway Company, 19 Beav. 365; Knollys | remainder to the tenant for life in fee, where property v. Alcock, 7 Ves. 557; Ex parte Hawkins, 13 Sim. is settled in strict settlement as it is called, there the 569; Re East Lincolnshire Railway Company, 1 Sim. money cannot be paid to the tenant for life, but is ta N. S. 260; The Midland Railway Company v. Oswin, | be paid into the Bank of England into the name of the 1 Coll. C. C. 74; Charman v. Charman, 14 Ves. 580; Accountant-General, and to be dealt with according to Partridge v. Partridge, Cas. temp. Talbot, 226; the 38th clause, in the same manner as under the Jermy v. Preston, 13 Sim. 356; Gale v. Gale, 21 corresponding clause in the Lands Clauses Act, they Beav. 349; Re Ellison, 8 De G. M. & G. 62; Re is to be dealt with under similar circumstances; that Harrop, 3 Dr. 726. is, it may be either in the purchase or redemption d The VICE-CHANCELLOR.-The first question is, the land-tax, or in or towards the discharge of any what is the effect of that which has taken place upon debt or incumbrance affecting the land in respect if the devise that was contained in the will of Wm. which such money shall have been paid, or affecting Bagot, of the Butler's Farm estate. It seems that he other lands settled therewith to the same or the Le made a devise, by his will, of his interest, whatever uses, trusts, or purposes, that is, lands limited to the that was, in this property. Now, the interest of Mr. same uses remaining unsold [here his Honour read the Wm. Bagot was this: By the settlement made upon clause in the Act]; in the meantime the money is to the occasion of his marriage, in 1820, the property be laid out and the income paid to the person entitial in question, and I believe other property also, was to the rents and profits of the estate. That clause is settled for the use of Wm. Bagot for life, with re- if not verbatim, at least in everything that is materia mainder for the use of his then intended wife for her similar to the corresponding section in the Lands life (and she survived him), with remainder to the use Clauses Act. The other clause referred to by Mr. of the first and other sons in tail male, with remainder Kelly, in the special Act, substantially corresponds with to Bagot in fee. Therefore he was tenant for life, and another clause in the Lands Clauses Act, applying to he was the owner of the ultimate fee, subject to the the case where property is not settled so that you can intervening estates. In that state of things he entered pay the purchase-money to the particular individual into a contract with the Birmingham and Derby Junc- who has got the interest; but this section applies to the tion Railway Company, in 1841, for the sale of a cer- case where a person would be entitled to receive tain portion of the property, for a certain price and the money, but by reason of his personal disability, upon certain terms. That having occurred so many or by reason of his not being able to make out a good years ago, the parties, on all sides, seem unable to title, or by any default of his in not attending before state what all the details of the transaction were; but the jury when damages are awarded, there the I think it seems to be assumed as probable, that it money is to be paid into court. Of course the comwas a contract made after there had been the usualpany must pay it in before they take possession; but notice to treat, that is, a notice by the company that when paid in it is not directed to be laid out in the they wanted such and such land, and calling upon Mr. purchase of lands to be settled to the same uses, but Bagot to treat with the company; and that, under that paid to the person or persons entitled to it. There notice, he did come forward and treat with the com-fore this special Act, it appears to me, contains a pany, and that that treaty resulted in the contract in question. By that contract it is agreed that the price to be paid (which is at the rate of 210l. per acre) shall be 6271. 78. 6d., and the company are to pay for the timber growing upon the lands, and all the expenses attending the negotiation and completion of the purchase which may be incurred by Mr. Bagot. They are also to pay for the abstract of the title and the costs of the conveyance of the land, and the vendor is to furnish an abstract of the title, and the purchase is to be completed before the 10th April. That is dated in March 1841. Now whatever might have been in the mind of Mr. Bagot-whether, as is suggested, he had really forgotten, or did not know what his precise interest was, and imagined himself to be the owner in fee-it is quite clear that his position was this, that at this time he could not sell the entire fee, except by irtue of the provisions of the Act. Assuming it to be competent to him, if he had been so minded, and if the company had been willing so to deal with him, to have sold to the company nothing more than his particular interest-his life-interest-and the remainder in fee, it is quite clear, upon this contract, that that was not the intention. I agree with Mr. Kelly, in that respect it is clear, upon this contract, that the testator was selling, and intended to sell, the entire fee, and the company were intending to purchase the entire fee, and not merely any partial interest of Mr. Bagot's in the property, to whatever extent that interest might go. The intention upon his part was to sell, and the intention on the part of the company was to buy the entire fee, and whatever was in the mind of Mr. Bagot, he could not sell the entire fee, and this could not be carried into effect, except by virtue of the authority given by the Act of Parliament, by which it is clear that while property stands limited as this property stood to one for life, remainder to another for life, remainder to first and other sons in tail (although there were then no sons in esse), and clause, I don't say verbatim, the same as the Lands Clauses Act, but substantially corresponding to this clause. Then under which of the two classes of clauses does the present case come? Clearly it comes under the class relating to the case of money being paid in by the company by reason that the lands which have been taken by the company are settled upon one for life with remainder over; therefore the money ought to be for the benefit of all the parties reinvested in the purchase of land to be settled to the same uses. The cases of The Midland Railway Company v. Ongis, 1 Coll. C. C. 74, and The East Lincolnshire Railway Company, 1 Sim. N. S. 260, do not apply, because Mr. Bagot was not the owner in fee, but for some reason be did not convey, and the money ought to have been paid in under the 67th section of the Lands Clauses Act er that which corresponded with it in the special Act in the character of real estate, because it ought to have been laid out in the purchase of real estate, to be settled to the same uses as that declared by Mr. Bagot's mar riage-settlement. Now, what were the uses to which the land, if the money had been so laid out, would have been settled? It would have been settled to the use of Mr. Bagot for life, remainder to the use of the wife for life, remainder to the first and other sons in tail male, remainder to Mr. Bagot in fee. In other words, Mr. Bagot would have been tenant for life, and subject to the intervening estates would have been entitled to the remainder in fee. That was his interest in this money, but entitled to it as so much money; therefore it appears to me, upon the question between the present petitioner and the rest of the parties, whether this is real or personal estate, I must come to the conclusion that it was real and not personal estate at the time of Mr. Bagot's death. It appears that Mr. Bagot had made a will previous to entering into this contract, by which he specifically devised the Butler's Farm, a portion of which was the subject of the contract with the railway company, but made no gene V.C. S.] POOLE v. BURSELL. [V.C. S. veyance, or to sign any mortgage of the copyholds, and praying for specific performance of the agreement. The assignees in bankruptcy were not made parties to the suit, the bankrupt being sole deft.: Held, on demurrer, that the assignees in bankruptcy were necessary parties to the suit. This was a demurrer to a bill for want of equity and want of parties. The bill alleged to the effect that, by an indenture, dated the 7th Oct. 1857, made between the deft. Henry Bursell, of the one part, and the plt. George Ayliffe Poole, of the other part, the moiety of certain hereditaments at Kenilworth were conveyed by the deft. to and to the use of the plt. and his heirs, by way of mortgage, subject to a proviso for redemption on repayment of 1600/. and interest. On the 4th June 1861 the said sum of 1600l. being still due and owing, the deft. signed an agreement, in the following terms:-"I, Henry Bursell, late of the King's Arms Hotel, Kenilworth, hereby charge and make chargeable the freehold and copyhold properties mentioned in the schedule hereto, with the payment to the Rev. George Ayliffe Poole, his executors, administrators, or assigns, of the sum of 16007. and <ral devise of his real estate. It is contended by one of the parties, that not only does this property remain impressed with the character of real estate, but it renains, in fact, part of Butler's Farm, so that the devise of Butler's Farm contained in the will operates to pass | not only that which remains unsold, but also the testator's interest in this money, which has become substituted for that portion of Butler's Farm which was taken by the company. It appears to me that contention cannot prevail. The effect of the contract was, that even if a notice to treat be given to an owner in fee, it does not of itself in my opinion (and I have so decided) create a conversion, because it does not constitute a contract. I had occasion to refer to this question in the case of Haynes v. Haynes. No doubt, in many of the dicta in the various cases, the expression is used as if a notice to treat constituted a contract; but in my opinion, whatever may be the effect of it, it is not a contract, although the company cannot recede from it, and it is binding upon the parties upon whom the notice is served; but it is not a contract in the sense in which that term is used when you speak of a contract which operates to convert the testator's estate from that which it was before the contract into something dif-interest at 5 per cent., due to the said George Ayliffe ferent. But when the notice to treat is given, although it is compulsory upon the party upon whom it is served, and he must give up his land sooner or later, still, if, under the notice, the landowner treats and contracts with the company, the moment he does so it is converted; and although it is a contract under compulsion, it is the same as a voluntary contract with any purchaser to sell his estate. Now what is the effect of the contract? If Mr. Bagot had been the owner in fee, the effect would have been to convert so many acres of Butler's Farm into so much personalty; but not being owner in fee, though it ceased to be part of Butler's Farm, it still makes it of the character of real estate, and not of personal estate. If the testator had made a general devise of the real estate, it would have passed under the general devise, and not the specific devise of Butler's Farm; but inasmuch as the testator did not and could not devise the general estate, the effect is that this money, in the character of real estate, has descended upon the heir-at-law of Mr. Bagot, that is, upon Egerton Bagot, under whose will it passed, and his devisees are now entitled to this money. With respect to the question of costs, the company must pay the costs of all parties except the petitioner, who will have his costs out of the fund; and except those of his son, who will neither receive nor pay costs. Solicitor, B. Kelly, 30, Lincoln's-inn-fields. V. C. STUART'S COURT. Reported by JAMES B. DAVIDSON, Esq., of Lincoln's-inn, Barrister-at-Law. Wednesday, July 23. POOLE v. BURSELL. Mortgagor and mortgagee-Agreement to execute a mortgage of copyholds-Bankruptcy of mortgagor Specific performance-Assignees necessary parties -Bankruptcy Acts 1849 and 1861. Deft. having in 1857 made a mortgage of freeholds to the plt. to secure repayment of a sum of money and interest, in June 1861 signed a memorandum whereby he charged certain copyholds with the same debt, and undertook, when required, at his own expense, to execute to the plt. such mortgage of the same as he should require. Deft. afterwards became a bankrupt. After the adjudication, and before the court had made any vesting order as to the copyholds, the plt. filed a bill alleging that the deft. had been applied to and refused to perform his undertaking to execute a con Poole under an indenture of mortgage, dated the 7th day of Oct. 1857, of the said Henry Bursell's moiety in the said King's Arms Hotel; and I undertake, when thereunto required, at my own expense, to execute to the said George Ayliffe Poole such mortgage or mortgages of the said properties as he shall require." The schedule described certain freehold houses at Kenilworth, and then proceeded to describe a copyhold farm of 55 acres and a freehold close of about one acre, the farm being in the occupation of Henry Bursell, and in mortgage to Mr. John Hyde, by two indentures, dated the 12th May 1861, for securing 2400l. and interest at 4 per cent. The bill alleged that the said sum of 16007. and a considerable arrear of interest being due on the said mortgage of the 7th Oct. 1857, and the said undertaking of the 4th June 1861, the plt., by his solicitor, applied to the deft. to perform his undertaking of the 4th June, and to execute a proper surrender of the copyholds to the plt., but the deft. had declined and neglected so to do, and had refused to sign any mortgage of the said copyhold hereditaments. The deft. had been lately adjudicated a bankrupt, and this bill was filed against the deft. alone, alleging that the freehold hereditaments comprised in the schedule were now (subject to the mortgage to Mr. John Hyde and to the agreement of the 4th June 1861) vested in the deft.'s assignee or assignees, but no disposition had been made by the Court of Bankruptcy of the said copyhold hereditaments. The bill prayed for a declaration that the undertaking of the 4th June 1861 as to the copyholds ought to be specifically performed, and that the deft. might be decreed specifically to perform the undertaking, and at his own exponse to make a proper conditional surrender of the copyholds as a security for the sum of 1600l. and interest. Malins, Q.C. and Southgate supported the demurrer. The court will not order a bankrupt to surrender copyholds to a debtor, without at least the presence of the assignees in bankruptcy. All the estate and interest of the bankrupt have passed to his assignees; and, as to the surrender of copyholds of which he may be tenant, by the 114th section of the Act of 1861 it is enacted, that "the court shall have power to dispose, for the benefit of the creditors, of any estate or interest, at law or in equity, which at adjudication or afterwards, before order of discharge, a bankrupt has in any copyhold or customary land, and to make an order vesting the land, or such estate or interest as the bankrupt has therein, in such person and in such V.C. S.] BIDDER v. LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH FOR CROYDON. [V.C. W. se manner as the court shall think fit." The bankrupt | had applied to them, could not have helped us. E a bankrupt has in any copyhold or customary let' Solicitors for the plt., Rickards and Walker; fat the deft., Neal. The VICE-CHANCELLOR.-It has been argued the, in this case, the assignees of the bankrupt, altingi Craig, Q.C. and Batten supported the bill.-The they are admitted to have an interest in the capaci bankrupt is a necessary party to this suit, and the property which is the subject of this suit, yet are my assignees are unnecessary parties. The 142nd section interested in the beneficial interest of that prosen of the Bankrupt Act of 1849 is unrepealed and still and are not interested in the legal estate. That is an in force. By that section copyhold property is ex- argument which the 114th section of the Act of F pressly excepted out of the rule, that all lands, &c. liament of 1861 has made it impossible to susta, vest absolutely in the assignees by virtue of their because that section is not limited to the beneficial i appointment. Sect. 209 of the Act of 1849, which terest, but to every estate, legal or equitable, whicis empowered the Court of Bankruptcy by deed enrolled vested in the bankrupt. The language of the sectio to sell and convey the copyholds of bankrupts, and to is, "any estate or interest, at law or in equity, a authorise any person to surrender, is no doubt re-at adjudication or afterwards, before order of discharg pealed, and sect. 114 of the Act of 1861 is substituted for it. But sect. 210 of the Act of 1849, whereby the purchaser is directed to agree and compound with the lord for his fines, &c., and the lord is to admit him, is still in force. In other words, the lord's rights remain intact. Then, if the legal estate be not in the assignees, it must remain in the bankrupt until a vesting order is made. Here then is a contract which has the effect of making the bankrupt a trustee for the plt. as to the legal estate, that is, as to all his estate, except the equity of redemption. [The VICE-CHANCELLOR.-You cannot represent a higher interest than you take under your deed of mortgage. What you call an undertaking is, in fact, nothing more than a further security for the original debt.] This is a bill for specific performance. There is no authority to show, in a suit of this kind, where a contract has been entered into, that parties who have since acquired a beneficial interest in the contract, are necessary parties. The form of decree for specific performance of an agreement to execute a mortgage is to be found in Seton on Decrees, 3rd edit. p. 443, with reference to Jones v. Greatwood, M. R. 18, Jan. 1853. See also Tasker v. Small, 3 M. & Cr. 71; Cutts v. Thodey, 1 Coll. 223, n. But, further, the equity of redemption in the copyholds is still in the bankrupt. It does not vest in the assignees any more than any other part of the copyhold estates. [The VICE-CHANCELLOR.-The bankrupt is still the lord's tenant; but the beneficial interest must be in the assignees.] If that be so, still this is the case of a mortgage, not of a sale. The bill avers that no disposition has been made by the court. [The VICE-CHANCELLOR.—You wish to have an order vesting the estate in the plt. behind the back of the assignees.] We are under no obligation to have a sale. [The VICE-CHANCELLOR.-It is a matter of course, if the assignees come in, and offer to pay you principal, interest and costs, that your suit will be stopped.] If the plt. was a purchaser asking for a decree, the assignees would be necessary parties, but he is a mortgagee. If he is entitled to a decree for specific performance, can the bankruptcy of the deft, make any The object of this suit was to restrain the local difference as to his rights? If the plt. had brought board of health for Croydon from continuing to disthe assignees here, he would have had to pay their charge sewage filth or other offensive or injurious matcosts. The demurrer is for want of equity, as well as ter, either solid or liquid, into the river Wandle, to the for want of parties, and the plt. could not have submitted injury of the plt. and his property. The plt. was the to the whole demurrer. The VICE-CHANCELLOR.owner of property near Croydon, with gardens and Before the argument, you might have written to the pleasure-grounds running down to the river Wandle, deft.'s solicitor to say you would submit to the de- which was originally a clear pure stream noted for its murrer for want of parties. Or you might have come trout. In 1853 the local board of health constructed with an application for a special summons in cham-a sewer for discharging the drainage of Croydon into bers.] The whole question is one of parties. We do the Wandle, at a point between two or three miles not ask the deft. to pay the money-that he may not above the plt.'s property. The upper portion of the be able to do; but we ask him to make the convey-river was so polluted by the discharge from this sewer, ance, which he can do. [The VICE-CHANCELLOR.—that proceedings were taken against the board for If he can do so, I will not hear the question raised in creating a nuisance by a Mr. Lambert. These prothe absence of those who have a right to say he can-ceedings resulted in an injunction against the board, not.] The Court of Bankruptcy itself could not have and payment by them of 2001. to Mr. Lambert for vested the estate in the plt., and the assignees, if we damages. The board thereupon constructed a fresh V. C. WOOD'S COURT. Jan. 14 and 16. BIDDER v. LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH FOR Injunction-Sewage-Pollution of river. Held, that the plt. was entitled to an injunction to restrain the further pollution of the water passing by his property. |