1840.-Taylor v. Rundell.

they had no authority to make use of those documents as individuals, except by an order of the board, and except that, under the co-partnership deed, they had a right, in common with the other members of the association, to inspect and take copies of those documents, from the 14th to the 35th day after every general yearly meeting of the association, but not after that period: that Parkinson had the same opportunities of inspecting and using the documents as they had: that they had not the permission of the directors to have or use the documents for the purposes of the suit; but, on the contrary, the directors declined to allow them to use the documents, or to give them any further information which might enable the plaintiffs to prosecute the suit against them (who were mere trustees,) without bringing the other members of the association before the Court.

The Master having over-ruled exceptions taken to the answer for insufficiency, the plaintiffs excepted to his report.

Mr. Knight Bruce, Mr. Wigram, Mr. Jacob, and Mr. James Russell, for the plaintiffs :-The defendants say they believe that the American agent of the association, of which they are directors, has, in his possession, many documents relating to the ac

counts of the mines; but they do not say that they have [*394] ever applied, to him, for any information as to those documents or their contents. They are bound to obtain all the information in their power, and to communicate it to the plaintiffs.

Mr. Wakefield, Mr. Bethell, and Mr. Wood, for the defendants: -The answer states, expressly, that the defendants have paid but little attention to the affairs of the association, and that, save as therein set forth, they have no information whatever, other than is contained in the documents mentioned in the schedules, as to any matters connected with the mines. The agent in America, is not the agent of the defendants, but of the association at large; and, consequently, the accounts in America are not in the possession or power of the defendants, but of the association as a body. The defendants have no access to any of the accounts

1840.-Taylor v. Rundell.

This

except for 21 days after every general, yearly meeting. Court will not order a party to do that which it is not in his power to do. Besides, Mr. Parkinson was appointed a director on the nomination of the Duke, and for the express purpose of watching over and protecting the Duke's interests. That gentleman has the same means of obtaining information as to the concerns of the association, as the defendants have. The defend ants are trustees for the association, as well as directors of it: will the Court order them to do an act which would be a breach of their duty and a violation of the rules of the association prescribed by the co-partnership deed? The plaintiffs cannot obtain any further information as to the matters in question, without making all the other members of the association parties to the suit. Farquharson v. Balfour;(a) White v. Williams ;(b)

*Freeman v. Fairlie ;(c) Walbourn v. Ingilby;(d) Murray [*395] v. Walter.(e)

Mr. Knight Bruce, in reply, said that the cases cited related to the production of documents: that the question before the Court, was not whether the plaintiffs had a right to the production of the accounts of the mines, but whether they had a right to a discovery of the contents of those accounts: that a party might have a right to know the contents of a document, though he might not be entitled to have the document produced.

THE VICE-CHANCELLOR:-I am of opinion that the answer is not sufficient.

The defendants, as directors, are not placed in a position in which they may not legally require the agent of the association abroad to inform them what documents, relating to the concerns of the association, are in his possession or power. They state, in their answer, that copies of some of the foreign documents, have been transmitted to the secretary to the association in Lon

(a) Turn. & Russ. 184.

(b) 8 Ves. 193.

(c) 3 Mer. 29; see 43 and 44.

(d) 1 Myl. & Keen, 61.
(e) 1 Craig. & Phill. 114.

1840.-Taylor v. Rundell.

don, and they set forth a list of them. Then, without stating that they have made any application to the agent abroad, they content themselves with saying that he has in his possession many books of account and other documents relating to the ac counts of the mines, and also some deeds relating to the title to the mines: and that the secretary receives, monthly, from the agent abroad, copies of all the accounts and other documents

of interest or importance, relating to the mines: but it [*396] does not appear that the defendants have made any *ap

plication, to the agent abroad, to furnish them with a list of the deeds and documents which may be in his possession. I am not aware of anything which prevents any of the direc tors from requiring the agent to furnish them with the informa tion which the plaintiffs seek to obtain through the defendants: and as the defendants do not state that they have applied to the agent abroad, for the information, (which they may lawfully do,) the exceptions must be allowed. (a)

(a) Affirmed by Lord Cottenham, C. 1 Craig. Phill. 104. See Christian v. Taylor, post, 401.

Testator directed his residue to be divided amongst the children of L. D., to wit,
J. D., E. D., and A. D. Held that the gift was not made to the children as a
class, but as individuals; and that one of them having died in the testator's life.
time, the share intended for that child was undisposed of.

Testator directed that the legacies given, by his will, to females, married or
single, should be for their own benefit and their children, and should never be
subjected to the control of their respective husbands. Held that the females
took for their lives, for their separate use, with remainders to their children.
A British subject resident in France, made his will and died there, having appointed
A. and B., who were resident in France, and C. and D., who were resident in
England, his executors. The will was translated into French, and the transla-
tion was registered, by A. and B., in the proper court in Paris. A duly authen-
ticated copy of the translation was then procured, and translated into English by
a notary public in London; and that translation was proved by C. and D. in the
Prerogative Court.

THE testator in the cause, was a British subject, resident in France, and having personal property in that country, as well as in England. His will was, partly, in the following words:

"I, the undersigned, John Devereux, formerly resident at Moorfields, London, and now at Avenue de Neuilly, near Paris, make my present testament and last will, by which I revoke all testaments and wills that I have heretofore made, and dispose of my property in the manner following, to wit, I give and be queath 1007. sterling to each of my sisters in Ireland, who shall be living at the time of my decease: to Mr. Nicholas Devereux of Castlebridge, near Wexford in Ireland, 501. sterling: to Mrs. Louisa Langton Drew of Paris, 1,000l. sterling: to Alexander and Napoleon Lariviere, sons of Madame Louise Lariviere, whom I hereby nominate and constitute as their guardian till their majority, 500l. sterling each. I give [398] and bequeath all the rest of what I possess to be divided, in equal portions, amongst the children of the said Louisa Langton Drew, to wit, John Louis Drew, Louisa Lariviere, Julia Bain, Isabella Agnes Drew, Edward Alexander Drew and Na

1840.-Bain v. Lescher.

poleon Drew. It is my wish that all my property be immedi ately converted into money; that the shares of those who shall be of age, shall be given to them without delay, and that the shares coming to the minors, be placed in the public funds of Paris or London, as shall be most convenient for the testamentary executors; and, till they become of age, I hereby nominate and appoint my testamentary executors hereinafter mentioned, as guardians and trustees of the said minors, during their minority And I direct that the legacies given, by the present will, to females, married or single, shall be for their own benefit and their children, and shall never be subjected to the control of their respective husbands. I hereby nominate and appoint Madame Louisa Lariviere, Thomas Pickford, Britannic consul at Paris, M. O'Maly, Esq., residing at No 5 Rue du Faubourg St. Honore, and William Lescher, Esq., of Thomasstreet, Whitechapel, London, as executors of my present testa ment and last will."

John Louis Drew died in April, 1837. The testator died in April, 1838. Julia Bain had one child, and Louisa Lariviere had two children born at the testator's death, and still living.

A French translation of the will was first registered, in the proper Court in Paris, by Pickford and O'Maly. A copy of that translation was then made and signed by a notary in Paris: and Pickford, as British consul there, certified that the [*399] signature was the signature of the notary. An English translation of the copy, was then made by a notary public in London; and that translation was proved, by Lescher and Louisa Lariviere, in the Prerogative Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury.(a)

The bill was filed by Julia Bain, by her next friend, and by Isabella Agnes Drew, Edward Alexander Drew and Napoleon Drew, against William Joseph Lescher, Louisa Langton Drew, Louisa Lariviere and her two children, the husband and child of Louisa Bain, and the testator's next of kin.

(a) The reporter was informed that the Prerogative Court refused to admit to probate the original will, which was written, in English, by the testator himself.