Vice-Chancellor's Court, ...
u - OUlb Wan mUulctULCe oD e Epainurt, tor tte purpose ot trying the right of the Governors of Christ's flospital to receive a sum of 17. 4d. by way of licence, from all persons keeping cartc within the dty of London. It apueared by the pleadings, that this sum had been demanded and received by the Corperation of London for more than two centuries past, under the naine of car-room * and that its original institution was in consequence of certain regulations which were made with respect to the rates of carriage in thecity. The Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of London, had made various orders and grants in their Common Council, by wh.ch the right to receive this impost had been vested in various companies, and for various purposes. At length it was grantedl for a terrn of 61 years, which remains now unexpired, to the Governors of Cbrlses Hospital, and the proceeds were directed to be applied to the maintenance of the poor children harboured there. Doubts had arisenaa to the right of the city of Lonlon to demand these sums, and also as to the validity of the grant underwhich the Corporation of Cbi'f s Hospital claimed to receive them ; and to try these questions the ,-sent suit had bees brought. The question was extremely .difilult to decide, owing to the length of time that had elapsed since the first payment of these licence,. The till had been framed with 'great care and nicety by the late illr. Aladdock, and was against the Corporation of Christ's Hospital, praying for a discovery. ien the pleadings had been gone through, Alr.A GAIL, who vras .Sf counsel for the 'plaintiff, began to atidress the Court, but was 'atoppedlaby The VI -CUASrCELLOR, who said that the bill in its present shape was defective, because it did. not bring all the parties before the Court, The Coiporation of Christ's Hospital claimed by virtue of a grant from the city of London; the latter Corporation must, therefore, be included iR the bill, before the Court could entertain the question at all Hi% Honour wouldnot decide such a questil-,even when the city should be brought in to answer; because,until tbe legal ight was ascertained, the Court could not properly interfere; but it rould do then what it couAld not do now-it could send the legal ques. tion to be tried in tht shape of an issnte at law. The plaintiff was in this situation_-he could not bring an action at law against cither of the corporations, because in an action oat numcpsit (the only mode by which the question could be tried) there could be no implied pro- mnise, which is the foundation of suci actions, a corporation being incapable of making an implied promise. It would, however, be casy to amend the bill in such a manner as to procure the answer. as well of the city of London as of Christ's Hospital; and then the Court would direct an issue, in which the implied promise should be contained, and thus the question might be tiedl. His Honour there- fore directed that the cause should bc put iu the first paper of causes of kiilary Term next, acid in the mean tine the bill iight be amcnded, the answers obtained, and the plaintiff would have an op- portunity of considering in what sliape he would have the isiuc tried. V1CE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, TUESDAY, NOV. 16. -.Y V. CHRIST'S TIOSPITAL.