Court Of Chancery, Saturd...
LA w .RZ?RT. 4-neZOLtC1TOR. E%tERAL applied, on behalf oF the trusteeS OF LordSratihmore's estate, to have the different orders -pronaurced 6111ce 1820 rescinded, on the ground that they had no notiee of these otders, and had continued to manage the "tate, therefore, as iifthey had uot been pronounced ; and that the receiver appointed in 1819 2i ht be discharged, the legal estate being vested in the trustees. i'he application was resisted on behalf of the Globe Insurance Company, incsumbrancers to a large amount on the estate, as it Vould, if granted, materially a'fect their interests. 1he LO1D CHANCELLOR thought he could not accede to the RPplication in its present forrm. Besides, the whole of the creditors trere not before the Court. The So0.c1ToTRGE,sER_ s1 Said, that the bill might be directed to be amended, and a fresh applicatios then rade upon it. The LOaD CHAN-CLLOR declined directing the bill to be amnended; and was of opinion that it ought to be dismissed with eosts; bsut without prejudice to any subsequent application which the parties might thinlk proper to make. COwST V. HAR}RS. Air. HEAI-D applied that Mr. Robertt;on should have leave to be proposed to the Master, as a fit person to be appointed receiver to Covent-garden Theatre, notwithstanding his having been made a party to the bill. The SOLICITO1.OGEtERAL objectetl to the appointment of Mr. Robertson, as an interested p arty, and accountable for the profits. lr. lHART,tO show that the plaintiff's ob,ection was not captious, said that he was ready to consent to the appointment of ;llr. Barton, 'who was now willing to accept the office. Mr. SuoDEN stated, that a proposal had beeri made to the plain- taff'to purchase his sharo for 1,5001., for whicrMr. Harris's bond would be given as security. tr. 1 HAntT would as soon take Mr. Harnis wora as his bond; but his client requzired some other security. The LoaD CtHAyC ELLOR said, that he had only intended that the Mlaster should exercise his judlgment upon the fitness or unfit- ness of Mr. Robertson to be appoirted recciver. His accountability would cease upon his appointment. Air. HE4ALD said that was all he asked. IAlr. 3E;ADwELL asked his L,rdship to make someorder as to the profits in the receiver's hands. The LoRD CHANCELL OR would deal Witlh this as with any other property. He would hear a motion respecting the application' of the Iands, after a receiver was appointed. THE MAARCHIOyESS O(F TUTE V. TIIE lION. SIR C. STUART. In this caqe a question had arisen as to whether or not a certain quantity of coals upon the banks of the collieries, together with cer- tain sumsof moneyin thebankers'hands, debtsdueby customers,&c. passed under the words in the late marquis's will, "the things user In theworking, management, or employmient of the coUieries." The case having come before the House of Lords, their lordbhips decided that thet did not pass under those words. An application was made to the (burt of Chancery to carry that judgment into effect, and the Lord Chancelor directed certain inquiries to to be made in the MWaster's office, for that purpose. blr. HART now applied for a variation in the minutes of the or- der directing the inquiries; which was resisted by the Solicitor-Ge. neral. After some discussion, the LORD CItANCELLOR directed it to stand over to Tuesday next. IN TUH HIATTER OF S.frTH. Mr. BiCxERSTETrE stated, that ilr. H-art was mistaken vester- day, in saying that there was no opposition to his motion to restore the name of lr. Smith to the Rolls. The fact was, that no notice of the motion had been served upon his (Alr. Bickersteth's) clients. The case was appointed to comre on this day week. TtURLSDAY, MARCH 2i5. SOSTENfENTE PIANOPORTE--CHATFIELD V. MXOTT. The plaintiff in this cause is a parEner in the firm of Mott and Co., piannforte-makers in Pall-mall. On Satursay last, he applied for an injunction against his partners, Isaac Henry Robert Mott and Julius Caer Mott, to restrain them from contiuaing the busi- ness, on the alleged ground that it was uuprofitable, that they were drawing large sums of money from the concern. &c. His Lordship granted the injunction, with liberty to defendants to tippear imme- ditely. This day, Mr. SHADWWELL applied to the Court on behalf of M1r. Julius Ceasar Mott. the managine partner, to have the injunc- tion dissolved. He denied tbe allegations of the plaintiff; he denied that the business was unprofitable ; he denied that he, or the other partners, bad withdrawn from the business niore monies than by the articles they were entitled to do! he stated that the plaintiff had forced himself into this conicern, by unfair.and secret negotiations with the other partner, and which hart but lately come to the knowiedge of defendant; and that he had no just ground of cootplaint. Messrsm Suc.DEN and GARRETT foUlowed on the same side. Messrs HORN, HEALD, and THaEOBALD supported the in- junction. The LORD CHAXCELLOR said, that he was clearlv of opinion that in this case the injunction could t,ot be maintained: if the ex- planation of certain facts had been given tohirn at the time he grant- ed the inj nction, he should have thought he had done extremely 'wrong to have granted it: therefore he dissolved it with costs. COWYT Or Cr-?ANCWRVY SAT"IA MAIO(* 27. _ tBXAUAMA V. THE EARL O0 STRATWMlOftE.