Court Of Chancery, Saturd...
LA W REPOR T. Asr. tionxF moved l'or an injiunction to restraiD the defendants, R. Mlott and J. C. Nott, from negotiating or drawving any bills on account of the partnership, receiving any debts, or disposing of' the stock. The defendants having in 1810 received a patent tor an im- proved pianoforte, called the " Sustenetite" Pianotorte, the plaintiff entered into partnership with them for 21 years. It was aerced by the articles executed between thliem, that the plaintiff shouild pay to the defenidant R. iVIott, a sum of 1,7371., and to the othier defendant 500 eiuieas, and to advance to the business a capital of 2,0001. J. C. Mutt was also to bring in capital, and to pay 1,i3 brother a premium of 1,000 guineas, if tie profits s!tould amount to 20,0001. in five years. The plaintiff perfornmed his part of the agreenient * but it :urned out that the business, from which so mutih was expected, yielded no profit at all and the plainllif' received nothiing for the money he had awdvanced, whilst the defendants had thought proper to take 6001. a yeav each t'rom1 the concern. The (,ourt directed notice to be served on the other side, the in. Junction to issue in the mean thtnc. COVEN1-i.ARDEN TtlEATnRE.-COX'T V. lTr.nTs. Air. HEALD applied to his Lordship for leave for Mir. Robertson to be tendered to the M1aster asa fit person tobe appointed as receiver in this case, wviuci could notat presentbe done, in consequenceof'tlie plaintiffhairng niade him a party, when aniending his bill, six days after his(31r. Robertson's) namiie had bect carried it to the MNIaster by the lessees His Lordship could not decide without hearing boti parties : but, pri nat tfeic, lie was inclined to think lie ougltt to allow Mr. Robert- son's namic to be psoposed. B&ARKER V. WRAY. Counsel were further heard in thiis case at some length after which his Lotdship decided that the issues ought not to go, as at present diretted. BSEAUMaONxT V. AT.TN`TT. ilr. HA.RT applied for an order, directing the defendant, John Allnut, to pay over to the plaintiff, Sir George Beaumont, the sum of 201., atid also topay the costs of this application. Sir George having purlhased a valuable picture of MIr. Haydon, afterwards lent it to that artist, tor the urpose of being exhibited by him in the British Gallery, Pall-mrnl, which he rented of the defendant. The rent falling into arrear, the defendant distrained, and amongst others the picture in question was seized. An arrangement, howover, was made betweeu Mr. Haydon and the de endant, by which it was agreed that the pictare shauld remain as a pledge for the rent with the latter. Sir George Beaumont heing no party to this agree- ment, filed a bill in Chancer)y to compel the deftendant to deliver him up his picture and the Vice-Chancellor decreed that the pic. ture should be so deliveredt up. This decree was appealed froni to the Lard Chancellor, who nade an intcrloc.utorv ordter, that upon Sir Gxeorge's payitig 1501. (the sunt for whiich the picture was a security) into court, it should be delivered up to liin. He accorditigly paid the money, and sent to demand the pictitre, but a Mr. Pinny,who took the gialiery after illr. Haydon, refused to give it up without ats order front Mfr. AJlnuit, or payment of 201., the cost of the picture's astandmig in the gallerv. Sir Gcorge, thierefore, served the defend- ant with notice, that if ie tlid inot give Mr. Pinnv an order to give up the picture, he would p- v him the 201., alid then move the LIord Cliancell(or for an order upon hins (tle defendlant) to refunid the mioney,andpay the costs of the application. Accordingly,havingbeen obliged topay tme 201. before he received the picture, theplaintiff'made the present application, conitending tiiat the defendant hail been guilLy of a breacit ot' the Lord Chancellor's order, for the delivery up of the picture. dtr. St'GIDEN, for the defendant, argued that this anplication was informal, the proper course for the plaintifftto have adopted being to enforce the order oi the Court. But if Sir George Beaumont chose to pay AIr. Plinny 201., or 2,0001. for the use of his gallery, tte de- fendant hadl iothing to do with that; -and could not therepore be said to have commTitted a breach of the order. At all events, there was no occasion for the present hasty application, as thequestior, might be dilsposed of'at the hearilg of the cause. i!,lr. HARur replied. The LoRtn CHANCELLOp1-Jf I say niothiilg to the contrary when I coine imito Court on Tuesday morning, take vour order but I have sorne little difficulty. .lr. SUGDEsr.-Dces your Lordship conceive that they have a right to their motion in point oftforn i T1he L.ORD C5SANCES.i.OR.-That is tmy only difficulty, as to their right in point of forn ; I have inone wlhatever as to their right in sottt of substance. 1 COURT OF CHANCERY', SATTuYDAY, IAP.Cir 20. CtlCATFIELD V. MIOTT AND AIVOTI.rst