1840.-Christian v. Taylor. Mr. Jacob and Mr. James Russell, for the plaintiff, relied on White v. Williams, (a) and said that the account of the yearly profits of the partnership business, which the defendants were required to set forth, would not consist of more than 32 items. Mr. Knight Bruce in reply :-In White v. Williams the questions related to certain payments made by the trustees themselves. [*406] *THE VICE-CHANCELLOR:-As I collect from While v. Williams, the defendants did not refer to the documents in such a manner as to enable the plaintiff to move for them. It has been the habit, ever since I have been in the profession, for a defendant, who is required to set forth a list of documents in his possession, to specify those that are most important, and then to say that there are others contained in bundles marked so and so and I cannot but think that, if a defendant says that there are documents contained in hogsheads which are marked and sealed up, it is a sufficient description of them. Before, however, I decide the questions that have been raised, I will compare, very minutely, the interrogatories with the answers to them. 1841: 12th January.-THE VICE-CHANCELLOR :-Since this case was argued, I have had an opportunity of comparing the an swers with the exceptions; and my opinion is, that I ought to hold the answers to be sufficient.-[His Honor here stated the facts of the case.]-The object of the bill is to show that the transaction with regard to the dissolution of the partnership, was unfair; and, for that purpose, it is evidently important to show the amount of the profits of the partnership, down to the time of the dissolution. It must be observed, however, that the defendant, William Taylor, had nothing to do with the business until after the dissolution: and the defendant, John Taylor, who is merely a personal representative of one of the deceased co-partners, cannot be assumed to have any greater degree of knowledge with respect to the profits of the partnership, than the plaintiff, (a) 8 Ves. 183. 1840.-Christian v. Taylor. who is the personal representative of the other co-partner, has. The partnership subsisted for a period of 32 [*407] years; and it appears, from the answers, that it has required great labor and expense to make out an account of the nature required, for a few months only of that period. In White v. Williams, the bill was filed by the plaintiff, as heir at law and devisee of his father, against trustees under a conveyance, by the father, of estates in the West Indies, alleging that the trusts were all satisfied, and praying for a re-conveyance and an account and payment of all sums due, from the defendants, on account of the trust. Lord Eldon, C., in his judgment said: "It is not sufficient for the trustees to refuse to give information by their answer, further than to cnable the plaintiff to go into the Master's office; and it is not enough that the answer gives a ground for an account in the master's office, and that the plaintiff is enabled to go there; but they are bound to give the best account they can, by their answer referring to books, &c, sufficiently to make them part of their answer. The Court would consider the trustees as giving the information very oppressively, if they were to set forth a schedule with reference to transactions for 20 years together: but it requires them to refer to books, to give all convenient opportunity of inspection, and to refer to them so as to make them part of the answer, and so as to ascertain whether that is the best account they can give. The plaintiff has a right to compel them, by their answer, to say that is the best account they can give. As to all the exceptions that go to the point of setting out the totals, the Master is right: but I give no opinion whether the trustees are bound to state them otherwise than thus: that they have laid the accounts, from which the totals will appear, in the Master's office; and that those accounts enable the [108] plaintiff to learn as much as they themselves know of them. Now, in the present case, the answers state that the defendants have attempted to make out the accounts in the manner in which they are sought to be obtained, and that they are not able to ren 1840. Christian v. Taylor. der such accounts, at least without subjecting themselves to so much inconvenience and expense as would operate very oppres sively upon them. They then refer to the books and documents in which the particulars of the accounts are to be found, and give the plaintiff the opportunity of making them out, as fully as they could do themselves: and it seems to me that, according to the observations of Lord Eldon in White v. Williams, they ought not to be required to do more. The second question is with respect to the documents. The defendants are asked, in the usual terms, to set forth a list of of the documents, in their possession, relating to the matters in the bill: and, in compliance with that requisition, they state that they have, in their possession, three hogsheads, sealed up, containing old papers, consisting of invoices, order for goods, &c. Then they add, that to specify the documents contained in the hogsheads, would occupy a schedule of enormous length, and consume many weeks, and more time than they had been allowed, by the Master, for putting in their answer. With respect to this part of the case, I have always understood the practice to be to refer to documents as contained in bundles or boxes, or to give some other description of them of the like nature and if they are so described as to enable the plaintiff to move for the production of them, the answer has been always, as far as my experience goes, held to be sufficient. In [*409] *this case I think that the documents in the hogsheads are sufficiently described to enable the plaintiff to obtain a production and inspection of them; and, consequently, the defendants are not bound to set forth a list of them. The result is that the answers are sufficient in both particulars, and the exceptions to the Master's report must be allowed. 1840. Meux v. Smith. 1841: 12th January. v. CHRISTOPHER.(a) A marksman signed an affidavit with his name at length, his hand having been guided on the occasion. The affidavit was ordered to be taken off the file. MOTION to take the bill, (which was a bill of interpleader,) and the affidavit annexed to it, off the file, on the ground that the plaintiff, who was a marksman, had subscribed his name to it, his hand having been guided on the occasion. The jurat was in the form applicable to the signature of a name at length. Mr. Knight Bruce, for the motion. Mr. Stephenson, contra. Motion granted. *MEUX v. SMITH. [*410] 1840: 16th December. 1841: 17th, 24th, and 26th March. 1843: 17th January. G., a publican, agreed to sell his public-house (which M. & Co. supplied with beer) to A. A. being unable to pay the whole purchase-money, M. & Co., at his request, agreed to pay to G. 1,000l., part of it. At a meeting of the parties for completing the purchase, M. & Co. paid the 1,000l. to G. G. then executed the conveyance of the house, and immediately afterwards delivered it to M. & Co.; and A. signed a memorandum expressing that he had deposited the deed with M. & Co., for securing, by way of equitable mortgage, the payment to them of the 1,000. Shortly afterwards, M. & Co. discovered that A. was an uncertificated bankrupt. Held, nevertheless, that they had, as against A.'s assignees, a lien on the deed for the 1,000. THE plaintiffs carried on the business of brewers, in co-partnership together, in Tottenham-court Road, Middlesex, under the firm of Sir Henry Meux & Co. In September, 1838, one Gurney was possessed of a publichouse, called The Dolphin, situate in Whitechapel-road, Middle 1840.-Meux v. Smith. sex, for a term of 63 years, commencing from midsummer, 1838, in which he had, for some time, carried on the business of a publican; and, on the 13th of that month, he was indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of 1,000l. and upwards, for beer sold and delivered, by the plaintiffs, to him. On the same day he was also indebted, to an amount exceeding 1,000, to Seager, Evans & Co., who were distillers at Millbank, Westminister. Upon the sale of a public-house by the occupying publican, it is the practice for the vendor to pay the debt due to the brewers who serve the house, out of the purchase-money; and, as it often happens that the purchaser has not the means of paying the whole of his purchase-money, an application is usually made either by him, or by the vendor for him, to the brewers, to ad vance the amount required to make up the purchase[*411] money, upon the security of the premises agreed to *be purchased, and to pay the same to the vendor; and, if the brewers comply with the request, they, at the time fixed for the completion of the purchase, give, immediately to the vendor, a cheque, drawn upon themselves at their place of business, for the amount, and, after the completion of the purchase, the cheque is presented, by the vendor, at the house of business of the brewers and the vendor receives payment of the cheque by having the amount of it written off the amount of the debt due from him to the brewers; and, upon the delivery of the cheque to the vendor, the vendor delivers, immediately, to the brewers, the title-deeds, including the conveyance, of the public-house; and the deeds are held, by the brewers, until the re-payment of the sum advanced by them, with legal interest: and it is also usual for the brewers to take, from the purchaser, a memorandum signed by the purchaser, whereby he agrees that the deeds shall be deposited, with the brewers, as a security, not only for the sum paid by them in part of the purchase-money and the interest thereof, but also for all other sums which may become due to them, from the purchaser, in respect of his dealings and transactions with them in the course of his business. On some occasions the sum necessary to make up the deficiency of the purchase-money is advanced, in shares previously agreed on, by |