Court Of Chancery, Wednes...
LAW RAPORT. i'rom tite protracted lite of the relict of the celebrated David Gar. rick, some o0 the provisions of his will. executory unon the termina. tion of her life-estate, remain unfulfilled. Hugh Bailey, Esq., ax executor of Peter Garrrek, took upon him the adniinistratlon of 160001I., to be diviged among the children of this testator: one- feutrth was due to Mrs. Paine,whose creditorst gave the trustce notiCe of her having assigned the greater part of her interest to them. Upon this followed two several motions to restrain the transfer of Ilrs. Paine's share of the Property. The case havingt repeatedly engagetl te attention of the Court, the only question which remained was the costs of each application, which was finally argued. The LoRb CHAYCELLOR did not very clearly see how Afr. Bailey could he called upon to pay the coqta, without more apparent proof of his taisconduct in executing the duties of his trist. EX PARTE ABnOTTS, BAaSfRUPTS, WINE-ITEnCH{ANTS. Mr. IVIO-TTAGU argued for the petitioners, whose certificate was opposed by the house of Langham,creditor to the amnount of 72,0001. The LoaRs ITANCELLOR, tR commenting upon tile case, observed, that the law, as it now stood bv the provisions of a late act of Parliament, allowed a sound discretion to the Lord Chan- cellor to enterLain the prayer of a single creditor in opposition to the certifieate. The state of the law, together with thc general practice as itstood befor-e, formed a subject of very just complaint. At that time, if creditors to a certain amount signed, the Chancellor m ust issue the certifictte. And this grievance he had himself o.ten felt, at a time when, from the altering natulre of trade, there were many more bankruptcies than at present, that in cases of the most profli. gate tud corrupt hankruptcies, those creditors who mrade the greatest outcry were found, ninety-nine times otut ol a hundred, to sign first. IHis Lordship appeared to think that the present case was one pecu. liarln fit for the exercise of this new discretion which was intrusted to him. These bankrupts had shown Rasets,nine months before the comsnsiion, which they valued at 1.17,0001. Their certificate was signed by creditors whose claim anmounted to 9,0001.. and it was op. posed by one cred:tor whose claim was 72,0001. Undoubtedly hie could not allow himself, by granting the certificate, to effect the en- tire cancellation of so considerable a deht, while yet those enormous zsseLs, which were said to be in existence 9 months before, remnained msnaccounted for. He-would therefore require the petitioners to make known to the Court what had become of those assets, and he would allow them to make any other affidavits which might contribute to the perfect information of the Court as to the reasons why they put this or that particular value upon the several items In that list, witether houses, trading stock, or otker property. COURT OF CHANCERY. WEDrnrSnAi. Nnv. 17. GAItRICK V. SOD. CAMSDE'.