Court Of Chancery, Thursd...
LA.d RRPORT. ofa oia oUit UEEANCELLO i Said ~ tbat with.r4pc-p.t4otOhe qot_e_~t_io I f costs hrthr rIIN46fi stoh d bier'1-o.diy; he vouldi' nio coztts to eitheLr party.- nL.AKErIO.E V. GLA?4OiiGAVH 'cAL .I The Loan .CIiiNCELLOR said, thatnhavinK.pdetponed hlsldeci- be ought r.ot t o'mmit' hlni; and urh,thtr.Rece was to haveUfia ci)oSts in at e a notuon. Thi u wie a nti ele4ieis the catial ;iu%t retisain. 'Aft re he efccta, he ceuild not discover that there had cen of the oatiop iot u ae coul be vistited bY the Court. f th t ercd-nyAbe uryi froL th m dimiisution of ftthe w byrac- tion at ?sraors e o hsren At te last sittisigbft the UUoflir. 11 AlRT'' had ni e a motion iod titbs caisti 11i-a Verelrerc,6to the Anaster to appoint a.sanager and receiver withcavieotwtr, tbait iii dient,tndf the heitet sb4uld co 'with leavneto Illr.eAlewtofie.. hiocsi as rielv9; ld Ie without salary or rewari,htll. Eershioslf orthemantger.. '- Mr. ySxuoDEyend*'in tand sucoeintw rl tae acrtien of- Benenicn at4 opp the motion. he ould nal cntra anihe Ebees t nd Beneant w lthre hadmundertkehnothe leare, whi the fonersht nuoresueanes vouf e1 ben o tringehr ith wc the o r orsie csruh;ccet*-)rei mbursemenot.82g Tnr posesi Wal salready-unaisyth ed befdre thbdiefcidtnt aicvrd~fcece, nt~taueo et and loAte amountg o nearly 0,0001. yjiun which,ontract. Term,182* , eie applied to the ourt o be rleved frohe cn a mothegound of freau it s ftor trepres~ntation of thalfnof BenJi Nbers bad fleod oa rsi bill nnor stipefic Pe byrA dn TFe nterwhic ofeilli were tifcottrsa boiund n ttito of hiF aneist T leirntd counsel contended, t,iathIa was a motion most unpriecu dlented 11t its' nature anri.peteniion-Z Tbir a ei efc s bhtp osehtt he erel ha eumi od bieen and mer ke t MgMenItve 01t eii'ry M' ad equiitv Of the estate, withlout 'a' rower Y"zelost o & proey, so long uasi ttie delayion the whole shAouild "'vi hMus be with henelli end his sureties Tbere fight be prole- iatygin it,itAlrjibers wvere ankieuso db.justlic,- eithetby standing- toDs thea ;eemenut, or submitting to the dissolu oi aeoo"li -the 4qtuitvr of the contract. Biut LA, wonssl ba sisapal to lnth the tlefendit anti his Isuretie to the fisli Isent"of' th& contract. CoulId it be listened to forea mnoment that he shoiuld bold-them;ibound' by all the covtenante of.peat ?greimcnt,rtame yetthat be shQuid honie here ron ordnoaer to receive and ianage agailt his ohief Irssei P The only. Way in whith Air. Eblrs douldi obtaih coug trol over thibs pro. nryagn et, eng and succeeding lvy innctio ssof-ej ec t- uar,tbyeWhOi alone hecould now re-cnter; and if he didcso, the de fendnt eul,bythe same meanu,obtainfa Vtlws frt4m the co'ntract, an tie sure,es would be no, lnger boues d,e which a.s.all the relief souh d ceptinothe reimnbtreeri,entcif 3.e h lid alreaedy e id by the defendate to fMth. Ebers, conte a h Iurat of cte cortract. Mr Hotc'rir appear for thie other noblemen and gentle. men, who were heihetes for the rents, on behalf of tenelil, whose ricce, Occasiionedl most probably by enigagements which he wa, )sy in maltBn e with Italian and, French artists for rhoe -pp ,ciing sea-son; Was nto reason for inducing the Cout.n c suppove- thar he would not returti in - good time, aner make thdlnost of his property, so long ast the dely of the cause should compel liini to brld the thcatle. Biut whfatever became of the pro. perty in the meaniine, r ro the cod. uhaven nright to cell it in questidn. Would Mslrh Eybers pretend that Mllr. Benelli Iffe should aunaeocer in timge, as was miat likely, woelti be Incapable of the inaasgementof'the property? bcowmame M.Ebers,intheformer oSein LOfD the roperty to appointbhim hischief artist? Itwas quiteclear thct sar. ibers found bhein, er theuglt him capable of lhe man TBini .Ot,Vwhen hle (1r. Bers), oNI vergood grouns,v supect ed his-own Abilities for that ofA.ce. Mr. oteon had got rid of his nlrurofltable lease; be had doubted Ben elli's responsibility;' he ha cruired, ,and he obtained,thebestsuretie8 which o4 ntihbegive2n foruthu cment of the rent; lie baa sued Benelli for speific perfonnitthe of the contract he had proceeded by an aitiot at law to tecover the valse :of thte bond : anl tinder entoeseiuen- stancenbyes hihon he lead seiabciually divested hinisel f of the legal estate, and oppiwn it oe mienelli and his surities, lie now raer to require thenert to abstract the only security whiand the bendsimen 'i3Gu beche theatre itself, aty d nut It in the curtody of thce 'Cotref Al I they ashed waA the contract -andi. bnr. Ebera chese to release iihe suretie fron their legal liabilities, for:ny th ing that they cared lie would he most welcome to the motion. THate ewhich thety did object to was, that they should be ieldby their legal liabilites under a state of things, ant a sitution of the property, totallv different from those tnder whichi a hl y becamw e bound. The LorD CHASNCELLOR said that the main question was- whether the securities etoUld be held bound, except as to the legal effnets of the lease. ilr. ThazsLovE followed. Ther. ihotwE, and observe; on the ine uitable nature of Mr. Ebers' motion, in tregArd to the legal ialy of the sureties; h ecause tMr. Bieers, when appointed to the itan ement, would soon obtain e ossession of more money than would tuffice to pey the half-year's ren, and he would immedihtely apply it to the fulfilmnent of his own contraCt. IIOW Was it possible to. allot him that pnower without first calling upon him to release the securitiafrone their legal liabilities for the payment of the rent n Mr. e HtAT, for the plaintiff, replied-. ani contendedl that the onlye o-bject iri opposing flhe motion was, that of frighitening Alr. Ebers inoon surrender of the sureties whiby he held, and which no equity nogala irhpeach or toucch by putting the property of the theatre, for the safety of' which be was ultimately beundl, I a ste of peril, which not only tcn reatencd deatruactin to the property but to Alt. Ebers also, if he should fail In his suit.,'lie contended that it Was for the intgrest of all parties theat r. Ebers should be pet into the anaagement of the property, when, from the whole face a-nd colour of the transactions, all parties were evidently of opinion that MAlr. Ben(lli should not be allowed to touch a farthing of the money. The Loan CHeANrCELLtOR said that the questiosi was if the sureties haid'any thing to do with the contract between R~ers and Beneli apart fromathe indenturesof the leasTe. The Court could not insist upon poitting sureties in a worse situation than that iRt which they hd plaiced themselves. There might be miany equitltes in thie ,contract between Ebers and Benelli, in which the sUTeties could not be implicated beyond the terms and indentures of the lease. A surety had a right tosay-" Don't tell me that I shball be betterdealt with in suchi or such a atate of tnanagemnert. I have only bounid nmyself to -i partiictuilar suretty, wwhiichb is void if you:ihsiAt upon doing th4at which you have engaged slhall not be done withotit mny consent. You may proceed to resumne t'he maniagement uTnder the,powers of re-entry ; but you do it nt yourown peril with regatrd to the equitable conditions of the bond by whiich you hold me." No doubt Mtl. Fibers was right if lie could succeed in forcing them so far to abide by the conitract, and wavinig that right whiclh lie certainly could avail him- self of to re-enter by an action at law : but his Lordship could dis. ,cover nio right in hihnself' to alter the general law of sureties. He proposed to take home the affidavits and the two trust-deeds, and -give them a careful perusal before he pyronouncedA upon the motion. COURT OF CHANCERY. TmTnRnA,v- 9- a V EL3!IYTEAY OF SCOTLA(D V. 1PV. .,t, .'1--